# dafyomi

lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***<b>PEREK HA'CHOLETZ</b>***
</b></font></center></p><p><b>
</b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'YIBUM' AND 'CHALITZAH' OF A PREGNANT WOMAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Yevamah did Chalitzah and was found to be 
          pregnant:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she gives birth to a viable baby (the Chalitzah 
               was meaningless), the Yavam may marry her relatives, 
               she may marry his relatives, and she may marry a 
               Kohen;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the baby is a Nefel (not viable), he is forbidden 
               to her relatives, and she is forbidden to his 
               relatives and to Kohanim;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If a Yevamah did Yibum and was found to be pregnant:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she gives birth to a viable baby, the Yavam must 
               divorce her, and they must bring a Chatas;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it is a Nefel, they may remain married;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If we are unsure whether the baby was born nine months 
          after conception from the deceased, or seven months after 
          conception by the Yavam, the Yavam divorces her, the 
          child has proper lineage (i.e. is not a Mamzer), and they 
          bring Asham Taluy (for perhaps they sinned).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - R. Yochanan):</font></b> If one did Chalitzah to a 
          pregnant woman, she does not need Chalitzah from the 
          brothers;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> She needs Chalitzah from the brothers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan holds that Chalitzah and Yibum of a pregnant 
          woman are valid. Reish Lakish holds that they are 
          invalid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  The argument could be based on expounding verses, or on 
          reasoning.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Perhaps it is based on reasoning. R. Yochanan holds that 
          if Eliyahu would tell us that she is pregnant with a 
          Nefel, we would permit her to do Yibum or Chalitzah. Even 
          though Eliyahu didn't come, when we see later that it was 
          a Nefel, this shows that retroactively the Yibum or 
          Chalitzah was valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish holds that we do not retroactively 
               validate it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Perhaps they argue how to expound 'U'Ven <i>Ein</i> Lo'. R. 
          Yochanan says, this was fulfilled (so the Parashah of 
          Yibum and Chalitzah applied);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish expounds 'Ayen' (see if he will have a 
               son).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah):</font></b> If the 
          baby is a Nefel, he is forbidden to her relatives, and 
          she is forbidden to his relatives and to Kohanim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not difficult for me. Since the Chalitzah is 
               valid, she is forbidden to his relatives and 
               Kohanim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to you, the Chalitzah is invalid. Why is 
               she forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Reish Lakish):</font></b> This is a stringency mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Question (Reish Lakish - Mishnah):</font></b> If the 
          baby is a Nefel, he is forbidden to her relatives, and 
          she is forbidden to his relatives and to Kohanim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not difficult for me. Since the Chalitzah is 
               invalid, it says that she is forbidden to his 
               relatives and Kohanim; this is a stringency. It does 
               not say that Chalitzah is not needed from the 
               brothers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to R. Yochanan, it should say that she 
               does not need Chalitzah from the brothers (and we 
               would know that all laws of valid Chalitzah apply)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, it should! However, since the Reisha 
          discussed the Isur of relatives, the Seifa also did. (end 
          of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah):</font></b> (When they 
          did Yibum,) if the baby is a Nefel, he keeps her (as a 
          wife).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not difficult for me. He keeps her because 
               the Yibum was valid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to you, the Yibum was invalid. It should 
               say that they do Yibum again, and he keeps her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, when it says 'he keeps her' it means that 
          he does Yibum again and keeps her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Less than this (to divorce her without Chalitzah) is 
               not sufficient.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Question (Reish Lakish - Mishnah):</font></b> (When 
          they did Yibum,) if the baby is a Nefel, he keeps her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not difficult for me. Since the Yibum was 
               invalid, he does Yibum again and keeps her. Less is 
               insufficient.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to you, the Yibum was valid. The Mishnah 
               should say that he may divorce or keep her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, this is true! Since the Reisha said that 
          he divorces her, the Seifa says that he keeps her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If a woman did Yibum and was found to 
          be pregnant, her Tzarah may not marry, lest the baby will 
          be viable.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> To the contrary! If the baby is viable, 
               the Tzarah is exempt from Yibum and Chalitzah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> It should say... lest the baby is a 
               Nefel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> If the Yibum of a pregnant 
               woman is valid, why can't the Tzarah marry? She is 
               exempted by the Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> All agree that Yibum of a pregnant 
          woman does not exempt. They argue only about Chalitzah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan says that Chalitzah of a pregnant woman 
               is Chalitzah, but her Yibum is invalid; Reish Lakish 
               says that both are invalid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> It is illogical for R. Yochanan to say 
          so!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the Yibum is valid, so is the Chalitzah! If the 
               Yibum is invalid, so is the Chalitzah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is because we hold that a woman can do 
               Chalitzah only if she can do Yibum.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'YIBUM' AND 'CHALITZAH' OF A PREGNANT WOMAN (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The Beraisa means, if one did Yibum and 
          she was found to be pregnant, the Tzarah may not marry, 
          in case the baby is viable. Yibum and Chalitzah of a 
          pregnant woman are invalid, and a baby does not exempt 
          until it is born.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> If one did Yibum and she 
          was found to be pregnant, the Tzarah does not marry, lest 
          the baby is viable. Yibum and Chalitzah of a pregnant 
          woman do not exempt, only the baby does, and a baby does 
          not exempt until it is born.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> The concern is lest the baby is viable. If it 
          is not, the Tzarah is exempt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This refutes Reish Lakish!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Reish Lakish explains the Beraisa to say that if 
          one did Yibum and she was found to be pregnant the Tzarah 
          does may not marry lest the baby is a Nefel. The Yibum or 
          Chalitzah of a woman who is pregnant (with a Nefel) is 
          not valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We should follow the majority of women, 
               who have viable babies!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> A baby does not exempt until it is born.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Elazar:</font></b> We follow Reish Lakish. Is it possible that no 
          Mishnah teaches his law?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Reish Lakish - R. Elazar - Mishnah):</font></b> If 
          Leah's husband and Tzarah went overseas and witnesses 
          told Leah that her husband died, she may not remarry or 
          do Yibum until she learns whether or not her Tzarah is 
          pregnant.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Granted, she cannot do Yibum, lest her 
               Tzarah will have a viable baby, and Leah is Eshes 
               Ach (with no Mitzvah of Yibum), an Isur mid'Oraisa. 
               But why can't she do Chalitzah?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Granted, she cannot do Chalitzah and marry 
                    within nine months due to this concern (lest 
                    the Tzarah is pregnant). But why can't she do 
                    Chalitzah within nine months and marry after 
                    nine months?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Implied answer: We must say that Chalitzah is 
               invalid if she (or a Tzarah) is pregnant, like Reish 
               Lakish!)
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Objection:</font></b> The Mishnah is difficult even for Reish 
          Lakish!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why can't she do Chalitzah after nine 
               months, and then marry!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #1 (of Support, and answer to Questions g:1 and 
          h:1 - Abaye bar Aba):</font></b> The concern is lest the Tzarah give 
          birth to a viable baby, and we would need a proclamation 
          that Leah is permitted to a Kohen (since the Chalitzah 
          was invalid).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why can't we make such a proclamation?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Perhaps someone saw the Chalitzah and did 
               not hear the proclamation, and he will think that a 
               Chalutzah was permitted to a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #2 (of Support - Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah does not 
          say she may not do Chalitzah or Yibum. It says that she 
          may not remarry nor do Yibum, i.e., without Chalitzah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she does Chalitzah, she is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Reish Lakish - Beraisa):</font></b> If one did 
          Chalitzah to a pregnant woman, and she miscarried, she 
          needs Chalitzah from the brothers.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHERE THE 'HALACHAH' FOLLOWS REISH LAKISH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The Halachah follows Reish Lakish in three places 
          (where he disagrees with R. Yochanan). This is one of 
          them (and we now give the other two).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven divided his properly (said how much 
          each of his heirs should inherit) and he gave more to one 
          (brother) than another, or gave the firstborn a single 
          share, his words take effect;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he called it an inheritance, it does not take 
               effect. If he wrote that it is a gift, be it at the 
               start, end or middle, it takes effect.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE PENALTY FOR A YAVAM WHO DOES YIBUM PREMATURELY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Eliezer maintains that when a Yavam did Yibum with a pregnant Yevamah who later gave birth to a baby which did not live, the Yavam must divorce her with a Get ('Yotzi b'Get'). Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the Chachamim penalized the Yavam for not waiting to find out whether or not the Yevamah was actually obligated to do Yibum.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that Rebbi Eliezer emphasizes that he must divorce her <i>with a Get</i> ('Yotzi <i>b'Get</i>') and he does not say merely 'Yotzi' alone because he wants to teach that since, retroactively, the act of Yibum was valid (because the baby did not live and thus the Yevamah became obligated to do Yibum), a Get suffices and Chalitzah is not necessary.
</p><p>
Rebbi Eliezer's ruling supports the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that Yibum done with a pregnant Yevamah is valid. How, though, does Reish Lakish explain the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer? According to Reish Lakish, who maintains that an act of Yibum done with a pregnant Yevamah is not valid, why does a Get suffice, without Chalitzah? The woman still has an obligation to do Yibum or Chalitzah before she may marry others.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> (and <b>MAHARSHA</b>) explain that when Rebbi Eliezer says 'Yotzi b'Get,' he means that the Yavam must give her a Get <i>and</i> perform Chalitzah. Rebbi Eliezer penalizes the Yavam by requiring that a Get be given in addition to Chalitzah. (Indeed, the Rashba's text of the Gemara reads, 'Yotzi b'Get <i>uv'Chalitzah</i>.')
</p><p>
This is not the approach of Rashi, however, who understands that the Yavam divorces the Yevamah with a Get alone, and not with Chalitzah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (in his second answer) and the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> in the name of the <b>MAHARAM</b> answer based on the Gemara earlier. The Gemara (35b) explains that according to Reish Lakish, when the Mishnah states 'Yekayem' (in a case in which the Yavam did Yibum, and then the Yevamah later gave birth to a stillborn) it means 'Yachzor v'Yiv'ol v'Yekayem' -- the Yavam must first do another act of Yibum since the first act was not valid. Accordingly, when Rebbi Eliezer here says that the Yavam must divorce her with a Get, he means that he must first do another act of Yibum with her (since the first act was not valid), and then he must divorce her as a penalty for doing Yibum before he knew for certain that she was obligated to do Yibum. He may not do Chalitzah with her because he already had relations with her.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, why does Rebbi Eliezer say 'Yotzi <i>b'Get</i>' and not simply 'Yotzi'? The answer is that by saying 'Yotzi b'Get,' Rebbi Eliezer emphasizes this very point -- that although he must divorce her, he must first do an act of Yibum with her and acquire her completely, and then he must divorce her with a Get.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> A recipient acquires only if (his 
               share is called a 'gift', e.g.) Reuven said, 'Ploni 
               and Almoni will inherit fields A and B, that I gave 
               to them as a gift and they will inherit them' (for 
               then, both are called gift. R. Yochanan says that as 
               long as the document mentions a gift, all of the 
               recipients acquire.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one wrote 'All my property should go to my 
          son after I die' - the father cannot sell it because he 
          gave it to the son, and the son cannot sell because it is 
          in the jurisdiction of the father;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the father sold, it is sold until he dies. If the 
               son sold, the buyer gets nothing until the father 
               dies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If the son sold and died in the life of 
          the father, the buyer does not acquire it, for Kinyan 
          Peiros (the (father's) right to the yield during his 
          lifetime) is like Kinyan ha'Guf (owning the property 
          itself. Therefore, the son's sale is null);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The buyer acquires it. Kinyan Peiros is 
          not like Kinyan ha'Guf.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A WIFE MARRIED 'B'ISUR'.</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (If a Yevamah did Yibum and was found to be 
          pregnant...) if she gave birth to a Nefel (they may 
          remain married.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> He divorces her with a Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> R. Meir and R. Eliezer hold similarly.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> Reuven may not marry a woman 
               pregnant from Shimon or nursing a baby from Shimon. 
               If he did, he must expel her and may never remarry 
               her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, he must expel her, but he may remarry 
               her (after she nursed the baby for) the proper time.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> Perhaps they differ! Perhaps R. 
          Eliezer is stringent because the Yavam transgressed Eshes 
          Ach mid'Oraisa, but regarding a mid'Rabanan law, he holds 
          like Chachamim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps R. Meir is stringent about a mid'Rabanan 
               Isur, for Chachamim strengthened their words more 
               than mid'Oraisa laws, (we need not decree to make) people refrain from a mid'Oraisa transgression!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Chachamim (in the Beraisa) say that he must give 
          her a Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mar Zutra):</font></b> The wording of the Beraisa proves this. It 
          says, he expels her, not he separates from her.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>IF SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A 'SAFEK' 'NEFEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> Any baby that lived 30 
          days is viable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> If it lived less than 30 days, it is a Safek.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravina citing Rava):</font></b> If Reuven died, and then his only 
          child died within 30 days of its birth, and David (a 
          stranger) was Mekadesh the widow:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If David is a Yisrael, she must do Chalitzah. If he 
               is a Kohen, she does not need Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Mesharshiya citing Rava):</font></b> In either case she must do 
          Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ravina:</font></b> At night Rava said so, but in the morning, he 
          retracted (and said like me)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Mesharshiya:</font></b> You permit (Nisu'in even when David is a 
          Kohen)! If only you would permit Chelev!
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO WAS 'MEKADESH' TOO EARLY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> (Rava taught that we were lenient 
          about a Kohen who married a Safek Shomeres Yavam.) If 
          Reuven married a woman pregnant from or nursing a baby 
          from David, did we enact a leniency for a Kohen (that he need not give her a Get, so she may return to him after she finishes nursing)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Hoshaya brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> No, this is not 
          comparable!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding a Safek Nefel, Chachamim argue with R. 
               Shimon ben Gamliel and assume that a baby was viable 
               even if he died within 30 days. Since there is no 
               solution for a Kohen to keep his wife if she does 
               Chalitzah, we rely on Chachamim (to be lenient).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Here, on whom can we rely?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We cannot rely on R. Meir. He says that Reuven 
                    must divorce her and may never remarry her!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> We cannot rely on Chachamim. They said that he 
                    must give her a Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav Acha and Rafram argued about a man who was Mekadesh a 
          woman within three months (after she was widowed or 
          divorced) and fled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #1:</font></b> We put him in Niduy (until he divorces her);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2:</font></b> It suffices that he fled.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A case occurred, and Rafram said that it suffices 
               that he fled.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'SAFEK' ABOUT WHO IS THE FATHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If we are unsure whether it is a nine-month 
          baby from the deceased...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Why don't we follow most women, who give 
          birth after nine months?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Our women give birth after seven 
          months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Are your women the majority of the 
          world?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Clarification (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Most women give birth after 
          nine months. A minority give birth after seven. Every 
          woman who gives birth after nine months is noticeably 
          pregnant after a third of the term. Since this woman was 
          not visibly pregnant after a third, this weakens the 
          majority (that give birth after nine).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If all are noticeably pregnant after a third 
          (and she was not), this baby is surely from the Yavam!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Most women who give birth after nine are 
          noticeably pregnant after a third. Since this woman was 
          not, this weakens the majority.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOUBTFUL 'MAMZERIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The first child (the one in doubt) is fit to 
          be Kohen Gadol. The second (a future child from the 
          Yavam) is a Safek Mamzer;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar ben Yakov says, he is not a Safek Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do they mean? (Why is the second not a 
          Safek?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> Chachamim say that the first child is 
          fit to be Kohen Gadol, and the second is a Safek Mamzer, 
          and he may not marry a Mamzeres;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar ben Yakov says, he is not a Safek Mamzer, 
               rather a Vadai Mamzer, so he may marry a Mamzeres.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Chachamim say that the first child is 
          fit to be Kohen Gadol, the second is a Vadai Mamzer from 
          Safek, and he may marry a Mamzeres;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar ben Yakov says, a Safek does not make a 
               Vadai Mamzer. The child is forbidden to marry a 
               Mamzeres.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Abaye and Rava disagree about R. Elazar's teaching.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Elazar):</font></b> Vadai Mamzerim may marry 
               Vadai Mamzerim. Safek Mamzerim may not marry Safek 
               or Vadai Mamzerim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Sefekos are a Shetuki (a child born to a single 
               woman), an Asufi (a baby found abandoned in the 
               street), and Kusim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah citing Rav):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. 
               Elazar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Shmuel):</font></b> Hillel taught that 10 classes of 
               lineage came (with Ezra) from Bavel - Kohanim, 
               Leviyim, Yisraelim, Chalalim, converts, freed 
               slaves, Mamzerim, Nesinim, Shetukim, and Asufim, and 
               all the classes (within certain groupings) may 
               intermarry. How can you say the Halachah follows R. 
               Elazar (who forbids Sefekos to each other)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Abaye holds like Shmuel, that the Halachah follows 
          Hillel. He establishes R. Elazar ben Yakov to be like the 
          Halachah, for the Halachah always follows him;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Rava holds like Rav, that the Halachah follows R. Elazar. 
          He likewise establishes R. Elazar to be like the 
          Halachah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MARRIED TO TWO WIVES IN TWO PLACES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that when Rav and Rav Nachman (and presumably other Amora'im) traveled to distant towns, they would marry other wives in those towns as a way of preventing any nocturnal mishaps from occurring.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that marrying a wife in the new town will not help to prevent a nocturnal mishap, because a newly married man and woman are not be permitted to be with each other for at least seven days; the excitement of the marriage causes the woman to have a flow of 'Dam Chimud' and become a Nidah right away. The Gemara answers that the Amora'im either informed the women whom they intended to marry seven days earlier, or that they did not actually consummate the marriage with them, but merely performed Yichud with them, and thus the psychological effect of having 'Pas b'Salo' ('bread available in his basket') prevented nocturnal mishaps.
</p><p>
According to the Gemara's second answer, how can the woman be considered 'Pas b'Salo' if she is forbidden to him because of 'Dam Chimud'? (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Yechudi)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (as explained by <b>TOSFOS</b> to Yoma 18b) and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 11:10) write that the Gemara means 'Pas b'Salo <i>l'Achar Zeman</i>,' she will become permitted to him after seven days. This is called 'Pas b'Salo' because he knows that she will be permitted to him in a matter of days. (That is, she is 'available' to him as far as the prohibition of being alone with an unmarried woman is concerned, even though she is not available to him as far as the prohibition of Nidah is concerned. Since a Nidah normally becomes permitted in a matter of days, she is called 'Pas b'Salo.')
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> and other Rishonim explain that the Amora'im were only 'Tove'a l'Yichud' -- they asked the women to marry them only in order to perform Yichud with them after marriage, but not to have marital relations. Since the women were informed that the purpose of the marriage was only for Yichud, they had no expectations of intimacy, and thus they did not have a flow of 'Dam Chimud.' (Moreover, if the Amora'im later decided to consummate the marriage, there would be no 'Dam Chimud' at that time because the women were already married to them. 'Dam Chimud' occurs only when a marriage proposal is offered to a woman who is <i>not</i> married.)
</p><p>
This explanation also answers the previous question of the Gemara. The Gemara asked that one is not permitted to have two wives in two different places lest it lead to problems of Mamzerus. Since the Amora did only Yichud with the second woman, there was no concern that problems of Mamzerus would arise. If he later would decide to consummate the marriage, he would bring her to his hometown.
</p><p>
(c) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b> HA'LAVAN</b> and <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 11:10) explain that the word 'Yichud' here does not mean 'isolate' themselves. Rather, it means 'set aside' for themselves. The Amora did not ask a woman to marry him, but to 'set herself aside' for marriage and to make herself available in case he would decide to marry her. This was considered 'Pas b'Salo' since the woman was ready to marry him at any moment.
</p><p>
There is no problem of 'Dam Chimud' in such a situation for reasons similar to those suggested by Tosfos. A man's request that a woman 'be ready' for marriage is not a formal marriage proposal, and thus there is no 'Dam Chimud.' When he later proposes to her and marries her, she will not have 'Dam Chimud' because the proposal was expected and did not take her by surprise. (This approach also answers the earlier question of the Gemara, as described in (b) above.) (See also Insights to Yoma 18:3.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> The following proves that R. Elazar ben Yakov 
          treats a Safek Mamzer like a Vadai Mamzer:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Elazar ben Yakov):</font></b> 'U'Mal'ah ha'Aretz 
               Zimah' - this is when a man has Bi'ah with many 
               women, and doesn't know which, or a woman has Bi'ah 
               with many men, and doesn't know from which she 
               became pregnant. A man might marry his daughter, or 
               siblings might marry, and the world is full of 
               Mamzerim! (Really, they are Safek Mamzerim, but he 
               calls them Mamzerim!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rava):</font></b> They are considered Safek Mamzerim - 
          'ZiMaH' alludes to Zo Mah Hi (what is this)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Continuation of Beraisa - R. Elazar ben Yakov):</font></b> Further, 
          a man should not marry women in different cities, lest 
          his children marry each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When Rav traveled to another city he would 
          request to marry a woman for that day! Rav Nachman did 
          the same!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Great Chachamim are not subject to this concern, 
          since they are famous (the mother would tell her child 
          who his father is).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rava taught that a woman must wait seven clean 
          days after she is asked to have Nisu'in (lest her 
          excitement caused her to become Nidah. How could Rav and 
          Rav Nachman marry women the same day?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> They would send messengers a week before.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> They would only be secluded with the women 
          (but would not have Bi'ah. The women knew this, no they 
          did not need seven clean days.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One who has bread in his basket is unlike someone 
               that does not. (Since they could have Bi'ah if they 
               wanted, they were not beset by thoughts about this.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Elazar ben Yakov):</font></b> A man should not marry a 
          woman with intent to divorce her - 'Do not plot evil on 
          your companion, when he sits confident with you.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN DOES A' SAFEK 'INHERIT?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A Safek (nine-month baby from the deceased or a 
          seven-month baby from the Yavam) and the Yavam (Shimon) 
          came to inherit Reuven (the deceased).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The Safek:</font></b> I am Reuven's son, so I inherit him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon:</font></b> No, you are my son. I inherit Reuven (alone, 
               for I did Yibum)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Verdict:</font></b> The property is in Safek; they divide it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The Safek and Shimon's children came to inherit Reuven's 
          property.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The Safek:</font></b> I am Reuven's son, so I inherit him 
               alone!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon's children:</font></b> No, you are our brother. You have 
               only a portion with us!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabanan):</font></b> This is like a Mishnah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> (A child who is unsure which of two men 
               is his father) does not inherit them, but they 
               inherit him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> There, the Vadai children (of the deceased) tell the 
               Safek 'prove that you are his son, then you may 
               receive'. Here, the Safek tells Shimon's children 
               'prove (that I am not Reuven's son,) then you may 
               receive.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Mesharshiya):</font></b> The cases are different! 
          There, the Vadai children surely inherit, and the Safek 
          is unsure. A Safek cannot take from a Vadai. Here, all 
          are Safek (even though the Safek surely inherits 
          something, he is unsure why he inherits).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Rather, the following case is like that Mishnah. The 
          Safek and Shimon's children came to inherit Shimon's own 
          property. The Yavam's children say 'prove that you are 
          our brother, then you may receive.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  The Safek and Shimon's children came to inherit Shimon, 
          after Shimon had divided Reuven's property with the 
          Safek.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon's children:</font></b> Bring a proof that you are our 
               brother and receive a share.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The Safek:</font></b> In any case I receive!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If I am your brother, I get a share with you.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> If I am Reuven's son, give me the half of his 
                    property your father took (I should have 
                    inherited Reuven's alone)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #1 (R. Aba):</font></b> The previous ruling (that Shimon 
          gets half of Reuven's property) stands. (The Safek cannot 
          say 'if you say that I am Reuven's son, return that 
          property.').
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2 (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> The previous ruling is reopened 
          (the Safek's claim is honored).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> R. Aba and R. Yirmeyah argue as Admon and 
          Chachamim do.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - Admon):</font></b> If Levi went overseas, and the 
               path to his field was lost, he receives a short path 
               to his field;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, he must pay whatever his neighbor 
               charges for a path, or else he must fly (i.e. he may 
               not walk) to his field.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We understand Admon (surely, Levi used to 
               have a path, and the neighbor took it). Why do 
               Chachamim argue?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The case is, he was surrounded 
               by four neighbors on the four sides of his field.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, what is Admon's reason? (He has no 
               Vadai claim against any neighbor!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> If every neighbor owned his land 
               (when Levi left), or if all bought from one person 
               who used to own all the property surrounding the 
               field, all agree that they can push off Levi;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  They argue when Levi was surrounded by four 
                    neighbors, and one person bought all their 
                    land.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Admon says, in any case the path to his field 
                    is by the buyer!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Chachamim say, the buyer says, accept my terms. 
                    If you protest, I will return the deeds to the 
                    original owners (undo the sales), and you will 
                    be unable to force them to give you a path.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> R. Aba holds like Chachamim, and R. 
               Yirmeyah holds like Admon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #1:</font></b> R. Aba's law is even like Admon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Admon said that Levi gets a path because he has a 
               definite claim (your property includes my path). The 
               Safek child does not have a definite claim.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>INHERITANCE IN CASES OF DOUBT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #2:</font></b> R. Yirmeyah's law is even like Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim favor the neighbor's claim because he 
               could return the deeds. The Yavam's children have no 
               such option.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The Safek and Shimon (the Yavam) came to inherit Yakov, 
          the father of Reuven and Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The Safek:</font></b> I am Reuven's son, so I receive half.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon:</font></b> You are my son, so you receive nothing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Verdict:</font></b> The Yavam definitely inherits (at least part); 
          it is doubtful whether or not the Safek inherits. We do 
          not take from one who has a Vadai claim to give to one 
          with a Safek claim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The Safek and Shimon's sons came to inherit Yakov.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The Safek:</font></b> I am Reuven's son, so I receive half.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon's sons:</font></b> You are our brother, so you receive 
               only a share with us.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Verdict:</font></b> The Safek admits that half belongs to Shimon's 
          sons, so they split it among themselves. Shimon's sons 
          admit that the Safek receives a third (e.g. if Shimon 
          left two sons, and neither a firstborn); he takes it. The 
          remaining sixth is Safek, so they split it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Yakov and Shimon came to inherit the Safek, or Yakov and 
          the Safek come to inherit Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Verdict:</font></b> The money is in doubt, so they split it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'YEVAMAH' THAT INHERITS PROPERTY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If property fell to a Yevamah, Beis Shamai and 
          Beis Hillel agree that she may sell it, and the sale is 
          valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If she died, what do we do with her Kesuvah and 
          the property that enters and leaves the marriage with 
          her?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Beis Shamai):</font></b> Her husband's heirs split it 
          with her father's heirs;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Beis Hillel):</font></b> The property retains its status 
          quo. The Kesuvah stays by the husband's heirs, and 
          property that enters and leaves with her stays by her 
          father's heirs.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If she does Yibum, she is like his wife in all respects, 
          but the Kesuvah is paid from the property of the 
          deceased.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why do Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel 
          agree in the Reisha but not in the Seifa?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Ula):</font></b> In the Reisha, she fell to Yibum from 
          Kidushin. In the Seifa, she fell from Nisu'in.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Ula holds that Zikah (of one who fell) from Kidushin 
               is like Safek Kidushin, and Zikah from Nisu'in is 
               like Safek Nisu'in.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHO CONTROLS THE PROPERTY OF A YEVAMAH -- THE WOMAN OR HER HUSBAND'S BROTHER?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that a Shomeres Yavam who inherits property is in full control of that property and she may sell the property as she pleases. They disagree about who gets control of the property if the Shomeres Yavam dies.
</p><p>
Rabah explains that the Mishnah refers to a case in which she inherited the property when she was a Nesu'ah (fully married). When her husband died childless and she became a Shomeres Yavam, her status became subject to a doubt whether she is considered a Nesu'ah or an Arusah. If she has the status of a Nesu'ah, she receives control of only the principle ('Guf,' or actual land) of the property. If she has the status of an Arusah, she receives control of the produce ('Peros,' or fruits) of the property as well. In practice, she receives control of both the Guf and the Peros, because regardless of the doubt about her status, she definitely owns the Guf of the property (even if she is considered a Nesu'ah), and thus she has a Chazakah on the Guf. That Chazakah dictates that she should get control of the Peros as well because of the principle of 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai' -- a doubt does not override a certainty; the doubtful ownership of the Peros does not override the certain ownership of the Guf, and thus she gets control of the Peros since she has definite control of the Guf.
</p><p>
However, why -- when she is a Shomeres Yavam whose status is in doubt -- is she given control of the property? Even if the case is decided in her favor and she is deemed to have the status of an Arusah, she still is unable to sell any of the property according to Beis Hillel! The Gemara earlier quotes the Mishnah in Kesuvos (78a) which states that when a woman inherits property as an Arusah, l'Chatchilah she may not sell the Guf according to Beis Hillel (see Chart). Why, then, does the Mishnah here state that she definitely has control over the Guf and may sell it l'Chatchilah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>BACH</b> (#5) explains that the doubt is not whether the woman is a Nesu'ah or an Arusah. Rather, the doubt is whether she is a Nesu'ah or <i>less</i> than an Arusah. If her relationship to the Yavam is <i>less</i> than that of an Arusah to her husband, she certainly may sell the property because he has no control over it due to the lack of any substantial bond between them. When the Gemara decides the question in her favor, it does not mean that she is considered an Arusah, but rather that she does not have the status even of an Arusah, and thus the Guf and Peros are certainly hers.
</p><p>
The reason for why she may be 'less than an Arusah' may be understood as follows. The Gemara in Kesuvos (78a) explains that Beis Hillel rules that an Arusah may not sell her property l'Chatchilah because he is in doubt about whether or not the rights of the husband during Erusin are the same as his rights during Nisu'in. On one hand, since it is likely that the Erusin will culminate with Nisu'in (at which time he will have the full rights to her property), perhaps he should be entitled to the property now during Erusin as well. On the other hand, since there is a possibility that the Erusin will not lead to Nisu'in, and since the bond of Erusin is not as strong as that of Nisu'in, perhaps he does not yet have the same rights to her property as he will have after Nisu'in. Due to this doubt (whether Nisu'in will occur or not), he does not receive the rights to the property. Accordingly, she may not sell the property l'Chatchilah because of the possibility that her husband is entitled to it, but if she does sell the property the sale is valid b'Di'eved. She may not sell it l'Chatchilah because of the <i>doubt</i> about who has control over the property during Erusin, and <i>not</i> because an Arusah has no control over the property.
</p><p>
This raises an obvious question on the Gemara in Kesuvos. If this doubt is the only reason why she may not sell her property l'Chatchilah, why does the Gemara not decide the doubt in her favor based on the Chazakah which she has on the Guf of the property? The doubt should be decided in her favor just as it is decided in her favor in the Sugya here, which says that her entitlement to the Guf is definite while the husband's entitlement is uncertain, and 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai' -- a doubt does not override a certainty. She should be viewed as a definite Arusah and she should have the right even to sell the property l'Chatchilah. (<b>TOSFOS</b> to Kesuvos 78a, DH Seifa)
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> there answers that whether the Erusin will culminate with Nisu'in or not is not a real doubt. Rather, it is assumed that the Erusin <i>certainly</i> will culminate with Nisu'in, and thus the husband is granted certain rights in the properties of his Arusah and she is prevented from selling it l'Chatchilah, even though she has a Chazakah on the property. That is, since it is so probable that the Erusin will end with Nisu'in, the rights to the property are given to the husband to prevent her from selling the property.
</p><p>
The Gemara here, however, is not discussing an ordinary Arusah, but a Yevamah. In the case of a Yevamah, it is not certain (or even likely) that the Zikah will end with Yibum and Nisu'in. There is an equal chance that it will end with Chalitzah. Therefore, the husband (Yavam) is not granted rights to the property based on the likelihood that he will marry her, as that likelihood does not exist in the case of a Yevamah. The Yevamah's status is thus in doubt (whether she is considered an Arusah or a Nesu'ah), and the doubt is resolved by the Chazakah she has on the property. Hence, she may sell the property even l'Chatchilah. Even if she has the status of an Arusah, she is not an ordinary Arusah but a Yevamah, and the likelihood that she will marry the man is no greater than the likelihood that she will do Chalitzah. This may be the intention of the Bach when he says that she is not considered even an Arusah; she is not considered an ordinary Arusah who most likely will become a Nesu'ah.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Zikah from Kidushin is only like Safek Kidushin. If 
               it would be like Vadai Kidushin, Beis Hillel would 
               not permit her to sell!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> If property fell to an 
                    Arusah, she may sell it;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Beis Hillel say, she may not sell it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Both agree that if she sold it, the sale 
                    stands.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Zikah from Nisu'in is only like Safek Nisu'in. If it 
               would be like Vadai Nisu'in, Beis Shamai would not 
               say that the father's heirs split her property!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If property fell to her after 
                    Nisu'in, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that 
                    if she sold, the husband takes the property 
                    from the buyers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rabah):</font></b> If so, rather than arguing about the 
          property itself after she dies, they should argue about 
          who eats the Peiros during her lifetime!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rabah):</font></b> In both cases, she fell from Nisu'in. 
          Zikah from Nisu'in makes Safek Nisu'in.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In the Reisha she is alive, she is Vadai (the 
               property itself is hers), the husband is Safek 
               (perhaps he does not receive even Peiros), so a 
               Safek does not take from a Vadai;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> In the Seifa she died, both heirs come to inherit, 
               so they divide.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Beis Shamai hold that a Safek can take 
          from a Vadai!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> A house fell on Reuven and his father 
               Yakov (or another relative whom Reuven inherits). 
               Reuven owed money to pay a Kesuvah or creditors. 
               Yakov's heirs say that Reuven died before Yakov (so 
               Yakov's property never came to Reuven, so the 
               Kesuvah or debt cannot be collected from them). The 
               creditor says that Yakov died first.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai says, they divide;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel say, the property remains in its status 
               quo.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> Yakov's heirs are Vadai, and 
               the creditor is Safek, and Beis Shamai say that they 
               divide!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Beis Shamai consider a document to be as if it 
          was already collected.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source to say this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> If the husband died 
          before the Sotah drank, she receives her Kesuvah and does 
          not drink;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel say, she drinks or does not receive her 
               Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> She cannot drink, for we require 'the man 
               will bring his wife'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, since she does not drink, she does 
               not receive her Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Conclusion:</font></b> There is a Safek whether she was 
               Mezaneh, and she receives her Kesuvah (from the 
               heirs, who definitely inherit)! This shows that Beis 
               Shamai consider a document to be already collected.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't Abaye ask from this Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One could say that a Kesuvah is different. 
          Chachamim enacted that she can collect it mi'Safek, to 
          encourage women to marry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't he ask from the case of Kesuvah in 
          our Mishnah? (Since she already died, the reason cannot 
          be to encourage women to marry!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Beis Shamai do not argue (about the Kesuvah, i.e. 
          the 200 Zuz that the husband must pay if she will be 
          widowed or divorced).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> They do argue!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> Her Kesuvah and property that enters and 
               leaves with her... Beis Shamai says, heirs of the 
               husband divide with heirs of the father;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel say, the property stays in its status 
               quo.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah asked what we do with the Kesuvah, 
          and never answered. Beis Shamai say that heirs of the 
          husband divide with heirs of the father the property that 
          enters and leaves with her, and Beis Hillel say that the 
          property stays in its status quo.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Rav Ashi - Mishnah):</font></b> Heirs of the husband divide 
          with heirs of the father.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This connotes that the property was the father's. If 
               it referred to the Kesuvah (which was the 
               husband's), it would have said 'heirs of the father 
               divide with heirs of the husband.'
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>PROPERTY THAT FALLS TO A WOMAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (to Question 2:f, 38a - Abaye):</font></b> In the Reisha, 
          the property fell after she fell to Yibum. In the Seifa, 
          it fell when she was still married.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (Regarding property that falls to her,) Abaye holds 
               that her husband's Yad (power to acquire) is like 
               her Yad.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> If the property fell to her when she 
          was married, all agree that his Yad is stronger than 
          hers!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Rava):</font></b> Rather, in both cases, the property 
          fell after she fell to Yibum. In the Reisha, no Ma'amar 
          was given. In the Seifa, a Ma'amar was given.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rava holds that Beis Shamai hold that Ma'amar makes 
               Vadai Kidushin and Safek Nisu'in.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It makes Vadai Kidushin to exempt the Tzarah, and 
               Safek Nisu'in to split her property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar holds like Rava. R. Yosi bar Chanina holds like 
          Abaye.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Elazar disagrees with Rava!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Elazar):</font></b> Beis Shamai says that a Ma'amar 
               acquires only to exempt the Tzarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> We must switch the opinions (R. Elazar holds 
          like Abaye and R. Yosi bar Chanina holds like Rava).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The opinions need not be switched.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer said only that Ma'amar does not fully 
               acquire, to say that if he divorces her, Chalitzah 
               is also required; he did not say it does not acquire 
               to share her property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> Scrutiny shows that the Mishnah is like 
          Abaye, but it is difficult why it discusses the case in 
          which she died.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Property that enters and leaves with her' suggests 
               property which enters her husband's Reshus, and 
               leaves to return to the father.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why does the Mishnah discuss who gets the 
               property itself after her death? It could discuss 
               who eats the fruit during her lifetime!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'YIBUM' MAKES HER HIS WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he does Yibum, she is like his wife in all 
          respects...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does this teach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina):</font></b> He may divorce her with a 
          Get and remarry her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Obviously he may divorce her with a Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since it says 'He will take her as a wife and do 
          Yibum to her', one might have thought that she is still 
          considered a Yevamah, and he expels her through 
          Chalitzah, not with a Get;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Obviously, he may remarry her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that he did the Mitzvah 
          incumbent on him, and now the Isur of Eshes Ach applies 
          to her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why don't we say this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'He will take her as a wife' - once he takes her, 
          she is like a wife in all respects.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Her Kesuvah is paid from the property of the 
          deceased.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  This is because Shamayim gave her to the Yavam (he did 
          not choose to put a lien on his property in order to 
          marry her).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the deceased did not leave enough property for a 
               Kesuvah, Chachamim enacted that she has a Kesuvah 
               from the Yavam, so divorcing her will not be 
               trifling matter to him.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'MITZVAH' IS INCUMBENT ON THE OLDEST BROTHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Mitzvah is for the oldest brother to do 
          Yibum. If he does not want, we see if the other brothers 
          want. If they don't, we tell the oldest 'it is your 
          Mitzvah. Do Chalitzah or Yibum.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he says we should wait for a (minor) brother to grow 
          up, or for the oldest brother to return from overseas, or 
          for a deaf or insane brother to do Yibum, we do not 
          hearken. We tell him to do Chalitzah or Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Version #1:</font></b> R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua ben Levi 
          argued about which is preferred, Yibum of a younger 
          brother or Chalitzah of the oldest.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Opinion #1:</font></b> Yibum of the younger is preferred 
               because the Mitzvah is to do Yibum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Opinion #2:</font></b> Chalitzah of the oldest is better, for 
               Yibum of a younger brother when there is an older 
               brother is not the Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Opinion #1 - Mishnah):</font></b> If the oldest does 
          not want, we ask the others...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The oldest did not want to do Yibum, 
               rather Chalitzah. We prefer that a younger brother 
               do Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, he did not want to do Yibum nor Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Presumably, this is like 'if they do not want'. 
          If also that means that they did not want to do Yibum nor 
          Chalitzah, why do we force the oldest? We should force a 
          younger brother!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since the Mitzvah is on the oldest, we force him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Opinion #1 - Mishnah):</font></b> If the oldest 
          says to wait for a brother to grow up, we do not hearken.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Yibum of a younger brother is preferred, we 
               should wait. Perhaps he will do Yibum!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Seifa):</font></b> ...Or for the oldest 
               brother to return from overseas (we do not hearken).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If we always prefer the older brother, we should 
               wait for him. Perhaps he will return and do (Yibum 
               or) Chalitzah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer to both questions:</font></b> You must say that we do not 
          delay the Mitzvah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHO CONTROLS THE PROPERTY OF A YEVAMAH WHO PERFORMED 'MA'AMAR'?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Abaye and Rava disagree about how to explain the difference between Beis Shamai's ruling in the first case of the Mishnah and his ruling in the second case. In the first case of the Mishnah, a Shomeres Yavam inherited property and is still alive. Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that she has complete control over the property and may sell it l'Chatchilah. In the second case of the Mishnah, the Shomeres Yavam inherited property and then died. Beis Shamai rules that the property is divided between her family ('Yorshei ha'Av') and her Yavam's family ('Yorshei ha'Ba'al'). The Gemara asks why Beis Shamai considers the property to be completely in her hands only when she is alive but not after she dies (such that it would remain with her family). Why does Beis Shamai rule that there is a doubt about who has control over the property after her death?
</p><p>
Abaye explains that in the first case of the Mishnah, the property came to her after her husband died, when she was already a Yevamah. In the second case, the property came to her when she was still a Nesu'ah, fully married to her husband (before he died). While she is a Nesu'ah, her husband has control over her property and, according to both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, 'his hand is like her hand' ('Yado k'Yadah') -- his hold on the property is as strong as hers. When the husband dies, according to Beis Hillel the hold of the husband becomes weaker and she is left with complete control over the property. According to Beis Shamai, his hold remains the same and thus they (the Yevamah and the family of her deceased husband) still have an equal hold on the property (and thus, when she dies, it is divided between her heirs and her husband's heirs).
</p><p>
Rava disagrees with Abaye and says that the difference between the two cases depends on other factors. In both cases in the Mishnah, the property came to her when she was a Shomeres Yavam, after the death of her husband. The difference between the cases is that in the first case the property came to her before she did Ma'amar, while in the second case it came to her after she did Ma'amar. Beis Shamai -- who maintains that Ma'amar is Koneh and gives her the status of a Safek Nesu'ah -- says that the property is divided among the two families because of the Safek. Beis Hillel, in contrast, maintains that Ma'amar does not effect any Kinyan with the woman and thus she retains full control over the property and may sell it. (See Chart.)
<br>	
<br>The Gemara questions Abaye's reasoning. According to Abaye, why does the second part of the Mishnah need to discuss a case in which the woman died? Beis Shamai would rule that the families divide the produce of the property even when the Shomeres Yavam is still alive (because 'his hand is like her hand' even after the husband's death), while Beis Hillel would rule that the produce goes to the Yevamah (because 'her hand is stronger' after her husband's death). Despite its question, the Gemara concludes that the Halachah follows Abaye.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara ask its question specifically on the explanation of Abaye? The same question applies to Rava's explanation as well! Rava says that in the second case of the Mishnah, Beis Shamai rules that the woman's family and the Yavam's family divide the property because Ma'amar was done. According to Rava, however, the ruling of Beis Shamai applies regardless of whether or not the woman died. Ma'amar gives the Yavam a stronger hand according to Beis Shamai, even when the Yevamah is still alive. Why, then, does the Mishnah say specifically that <i>if she died</i> Beis Shamai says that they divide the property, when he would say that they divide the produce of the property even when she is still alive (since Ma'amar makes her a Safek Nesu'ah)? (<b>TOSFOS</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Af Al Gav) and other Rishonim explain as follows. According to Rava, Beis Shamai maintains that Ma'amar creates a situation of 'Safek Nesu'ah.' Therefore, when the woman is alive the case is decided in her favor because of the principle of 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai' -- the definite ownership of the Yevamah (on the Guf of the property) overrides the doubtful claim of the Yavam (to the Peros).
</p><p>
If this principle is the basis for Rava's explanation, why does Rava not suggest that the first part of the Mishnah <i>also</i> refers to a case in which the Yavam performed Ma'amar, but since the Yevamah is still alive Beis Shamai agrees with Beis Hillel that the Yevamah is entitled to the property in question?
</p><p>
Tosfos explains that Rava does not suggest that Ma'amar was done in the first case of the Mishnah because Rava maintains that although the principle of 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai' allows her to retain control of the property, it is not powerful enough to give her such total control over the property that she may sell it l'Chatchilah (as Beis Shamai rules). If Ma'amar would have been done and the woman would still be alive, she would have a hold on the property but she would <i>not</i> be permitted to sell it l'Chatchilah. Therefore, in the first case Ma'amar must have not been done, and that is why she may sell the property l'Chatchilah. (See previous Insight.)
</p><p>
However, if this is the reason why the Gemara does not ask its question on the view of Rava, why does the Gemara not consider this answer for Abaye? The Gemara should answer that when property fell to the woman when she was a Nesu'ah (the second case of the Mishnah according to Abaye) and then her husband died, Beis Shamai maintains that 'his hand is like her hand' even after his death, but while the Yevamah is alive the principle of 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai' applies (because she has a definite claim to the Guf of the property) and the Safek that perhaps her Yavam is now entitled to the produce of the property does not override her definite (Vadai) entitlement. Beis Shamai would therefore say that they do not split the property if she is still alive, and it remains in her possession (because of 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai') with the restriction that she may not sell it l'Chatchilah (because that principle is not strong enough to give her total control).
</p><p>
The answer to this question is that according to Abaye, Beis Shamai does not consider the control of the property to be subject to doubt. He maintains that they <i>both</i> have equal possession of the produce, and thus it cannot be said that she has a claim of certainty while he has only a doubtful claim (see Rashi to 38b, DH Oseh Safek Nesu'ah). The phrase 'his hand is like her hand' ('Yado k'Yadah') implies that they <i>both</i> have the rights to the Peros (produce), and since the Yavam has a Chazakah just as the Yevamah does, the rule of 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai' cannot be applied -- there is no question about the ownership of the Peros in the first place. Consequently, Beis Shamai should still rule that they split the produce when the Yevamah is alive.
</p><p>
According to Rava, however, <i>her</i> hold is <i>stronger</i> ('Yadah Adifah') even after Ma'amar, even according to Beis Shamai. However, there is a <i>doubt</i> whether or not Zikah gives her the status of a Nesu'ah such that she loses her claim to the Peros. In the case of a doubt, the rule 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai' applies (when the Yevamah is still alive), and thus Beis Shamai would rule that they do not split the property if she is still alive (even after Ma'amar).
</p><p>
(It is not clear that Rashi (end of 38b, DH Abaye) agrees with this argument. Rashi does not mention that Abaye and Rava disagree with Rabah as to whether or not the rule of 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai' allows the Yevamah to sell the property l'Chatchilah.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) YIBUM WITH A MINOR</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses which form of the fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Yibum is preferable: 'Bi'as Katan' or 'Chalitzas Gadol.' <b>RASHI</b> explains that 'Bi'as Katan' refers to an act of Yibum with a <i>younger</i> brother (above the age of thirteen) but not with an actual minor (under the age of thirteen). Rashi proves from the Gemara later that the Gemara here means only a younger brother and not an actual minor. The Gemara later says that in the Mishnah's case of 'Talah b'Katan,' the Yevamah is not required to wait until the minor reaches adulthood. Rather, she may perform Yibum with an older brother because 'we do not delay the performance of a Mitzvah.' The Gemara there implies that when the younger brother is a minor (and the Yevamah would have to wait for him to reach adulthood), all agree that it is more preferable for an adult to perform Chalitzah than for the minor to perform Yibum.
</p><p>
Rashi's consideration of the possibility that the Yibum of a minor may be preferable to the Chalitzah of an adult implies that he maintains that a minor <i>may</i> do Yibum, and the question is whether the Chalitzah of a Gadol is preferable or not. If this is true, however, the Gemara is difficult to understand. Why would performing Yibum with a minor delay the performance of the Mitzvah? According to Rashi, a minor <i>may</i> do Yibum, and thus there is no need for the Yevamah to wait until he reaches adulthood.
</p><p>
(a) Rashi apparently follows his own opinion as expressed in Kidushin (19a). Rashi maintains that mid'Oraisa a minor (over the age of nine) may perform Yibum and be Koneh the Yevamah (notwithstanding the fact that if a minor does Yibum with a Yevamah who then commits adultery, she is <i>not</i> Chayav Misah as an 'Eshes Ish' since the Torah excludes the wife of a minor from the prohibition of 'Eshes Ish). The Chachamim ruled, however, that relations with a minor between the ages of nine and thirteen is considered only like 'Ma'amar,' and therefore he must perform Yibum again when he reaches the age of thirteen (Yevamos 96b). (This is also the opinion of the <b>RAMBAN</b> to Yevamos 96a, and the <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b>, Hilchos Yibum 5:18.)
</p><p>
Rashi here considers the possibility that the Bi'ah of a minor (between the ages of nine and thirteen) may be preferable to the Chalitzah of a Gadol since mid'Oraisa his act is a valid Yibum. Rashi concludes that since the Chachamim instituted that the Bi'ah of an adult is necessary in order to complete the Yibum, everyone agrees that the Yevamah should avoid entering a situation in which she will need to wait until the minor grows up in order to finish the Mitzvah. Instead, she is instructed to do the Mitzvah now with an adult.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> cites an opinion of <b>TOSFOS</b> who disagrees with Rashi and says that when the Gemara says 'Bi'as Katan' is preferable, it indeed refers to a real minor (of nine years old) and not just to a 'younger' brother. The Ritva agrees with this explanation.
</p><p>
This opinion obviously maintains that mid'Oraisa a minor may do Yibum and that his Yibum may even be more preferable than the Chalitzah of a Gadol (despite the fact that the Chachamim required him to perform Yibum a second time upon reaching adulthood). When the Gemara says that in the case of 'Talah b'Katan' the Mitzvah is not delayed until the minor comes of age, it refers to a minor who is <i>less</i> than nine years old. A minor under nine certainly cannot be Koneh the Yevamah since his Bi'ah is not considered a Bi'ah, and he must wait until he reaches the age of nine to fulfill the Mitzvah. Since waiting for him would require delaying the Mitzvah, Chalitzah with an adult now is preferable to waiting for the minor to grow up to perform Yibum.
</p><p>
(c) However, <b>TOSFOS</b> later (57b, DH v'Chayavin, and in Kidushin 19a, DH umid'Oraisa) rules that the Bi'ah of a nine-year-old can be Koneh a woman only mid'Rabanan. According to his opinion, when the Gemara here considers that 'Bi'as Katan' may be preferable to 'Chalitzas Gadol,' it clearly refers to a younger brother who is above the age of thirteen; an actual minor cannot fulfill the Mitzvah of Yibum at all. Even if the minor performs Yibum again when he reaches adulthood, the Mitzvah will have been delayed, and thus the Gemara says that Chalitzah is preferable to causing a delay in the fulfillment of the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> later in Yevamos (68a) agrees that the Bi'ah of a minor under nine effects only a Kinyan d'Rabanan. However, the Ritva here implies that the Bi'ah of a minor effects a Kinyan <i>mid'Oraisa</i>! Similarly, Rashi in Kidushin (19a) writes that a minor's Yibum effects a Kinyan mid'Oraisa, while in Yevamos (96b, DH Harei Zu) he writes that the Bi'ah of a minor does <i>not</i> effect a Kinyan mid'Oraisa. How are these contradictions to be resolved?
</p><p>
One possibility is that Rashi and the Ritva maintain that even if the Bi'ah of a minor does <i>not</i> make a Kinyan mid'Oraisa, it still may be preferable to the Chalitzah of an adult, because it may be assumed that the Ma'amar (the act of Bi'ah of the minor) will be consummated with a proper Yibum when the child reaches adulthood. Although the Gemara says that the fulfillment of a Mitzvah should not be delayed, perhaps that principle applies only when there is a doubt about whether the delay in the Mitzvah will lead to Yibum or Chalitzah. If, however, it may be assumed beyond a doubt that waiting will lead to Yibum (such as in the case of a minor who performed 'Ma'amar' with the Yevamah through the act of Bi'ah), waiting to fulfill the Mitzvah of Yibum is preferable to performing Chalitzah immediately.
</p><p>
Another possibility is that Rashi and the Ritva understand that this is exactly the question of the Gemara here. The opinion which gives priority to the Yibum of a minor over the Chalitzah of an adult maintains that the Yibum of a minor is valid mid'Oraisa, while the dissenting opinion maintains that it is valid only mid'Rabanan. Rashi and the Ritva rule in accordance with the dissenting opinion.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> Both agree that Yibum of a younger brother is 
          preferred. R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua ben Levi argue 
          about Chalitzah of the oldest and of a younger brother. 
          One says that Chalitzah of the oldest is preferred; the 
          other says that they are equivalent.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Opinion #1:</font></b> Chalitzah of the older is preferred, 
               because the Mitzvah is on him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Opinion #2:</font></b> This is only regarding Yibum. Regarding 
               Chalitzah, they are equivalent.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Opinion #1 - Mishnah):</font></b> If they did not want, 
          we return to the oldest....
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> They did not want to do Yibum, rather 
               Chalitzah, and we prefer that the oldest do 
               Chalitzah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, they did not want to do Yibum nor 
          Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, we must say that also the oldest 
               did not want to do either. Why do we force him? We 
               should force a younger brother!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Since the Mitzvah is on the oldest, we force 
               him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Opinion #1 - Mishnah):</font></b> If the oldest 
          says to wait for the oldest to return from overseas, we 
          do not hearken.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Chalitzah of the oldest is preferred, we should 
               wait. Perhaps he will do Chalitzah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question:</font></b> Why don't we wait for a minor to 
               grow up? Perhaps he will do Yibum (all agree that 
               this is better)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer to both questions:</font></b> You must say that we do not 
          delay the Mitzvah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH IS PREFERRED - 'YIBUM' OR 'CHALITZAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Mitzvah of Yibum is preferable to the 
          Mitzvah of Chalitzah. This was initially, when people 
          intended for the Mitzvah. Now that people do not intend 
          for the Mitzvah, Chalitzah is preferable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> We do not force (rather, he decides).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  When a Yavam and Yevamah would come in front of Rav, he 
          would tell the Yavam 'It is your choice. Do Chalitzah or 
          Yibum.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'If he does not want' - if he wants, he may do 
               Chalitzah or Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Also Rav Yehudah holds that we do not force.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Yehudah enacted to write in a document of 
               Chalitzah 'The Yavam and Yevamah came... it became 
               known to us... we told him 'If you want, do Yibum. 
               If not, stick out your right foot... she took his 
               shoe off, and she spit at him. Beis Din saw the spit 
               on the ground.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Chiya bar Avya says, Rav Yehudah concludes 'We 
               read what is written in the Torah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Rav Acha and Ravina argue about if 'It became known to 
          us' must be through witnesses, or even through a relative 
          or a woman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Halachah is, this is a mere Giluy Milsa (a 
               matter such that knowledge of it is not limited to 
               people who witnessed a certain event), so a relative 
               or woman suffices.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Initially, Yibum took precedence. Now that 
          people do not intend for the Mitzvah, Chalitzah takes 
          precedence.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> They returned to say that Yibum takes 
          precedence.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Did the generations 
          improve?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Initially, they (the majority of Chachamim) held 
          like Aba Sha'ul. Later. They held like the Chachamim who 
          argue with him:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Aba Sha'ul):</font></b> If one did Yibum for (her) 
               beauty, or to be known as a married man, or for 
               another reason (other than the Mitzvah), it is as if 
               he transgressed Arayos. In my eyes, the child is 
               nearly a Mamzer;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha' - for any 
               motivation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha' - (l'Shem) Mitzvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Initially, she was permitted to Shimon. She became 
               forbidden (when she married his brother Reuven), and 
               became permitted again (when Reuven died);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps she returns to her initial 
               Heter!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha'- (l'Shem) Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi):</font></b> It is Aba Sha'ul. The 
          Beraisa says as follows:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha'- l'Shem Mitzvah. Initially, she 
               was permitted to him - he could marry her for 
               beauty, or for the sake of marriage. She became 
               forbidden, and became permitted again;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps she returns to her initial 
               Heter!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha'- (l'Shem) Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The Beraisa can be like Chachamim. 
          'Yevamah Yavo Aleha'- Mitzvah. Initially, she was 
          permitted to him - he could marry her or not. She became 
          forbidden, and became permitted again;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps she returns to her initial 
               Heter, and he marries her only if he wants!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Surely, he may not choose not to marry 
               (or do anything else to) her. She is tied to him (to 
               do Yibum or Chalitzah), can she leave him without 
               anything?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> Rather, perhaps he may do Yibum or 
               Chalitzah, whichever he prefers!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha'- (this is the) 
               Mitzvah.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'MITZVAH' TO EAT 'SHIYAREI' 'MENACHOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reisha):</font></b> '(The remainder of a Minchah after Kemitzah) 
          Matzos Te'achel b'Makom Kadosh' is a Mitzvah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Initially (before it was made Hekdesh), it was 
               permitted. It became forbidden (when it was made 
               Hekdesh), and was permitted again (after the Kometz 
               was offered).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it returns to its initial Heter!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Matzos Te'achel b'Makom Kadosh' - this 
               is a Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  We understand according to Rava, who says that the 
          Beraisa is Chachamim. 'Matzos Te'achel b'Makom Kadosh' is 
          a Mitzvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Initially, it was permitted - he may eat it or not. 
               It became forbidden, then again permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it returns to its initial Heter!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Surely, this cannot be! 'V'Ochlu Osam 
               Asher Kupar ba'Hem' teaches that Kohanim (must) eat 
               to enable a full Kaparah for the owner of the 
               Korban!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> Rather, perhaps if he (the Kohen who 
               offered it) wants, he eats. If not, another Kohen 
               will eat!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Matzos Te'achel b'Makom Kadosh' - it is 
               a Mitzvah (for him to eat).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi established the Beraisa 
          like Aba Sha'ul. What two types of eating are there?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> You cannot say that he may eat with appetite, or 
               Achilah Gasah (gorging oneself to the point of 
               nausea). The latter is not considered eating!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> If one ate Achilah Gasah on Yom 
                    Kipur he is not liable for 'Lo Se'uneh' (not 
                    fasting).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, he may eat it as Matzah or as Chametz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> It says, 'Lo Se'afeh Chelkam Chametz'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Even the Kohanim's portion may not 
               be baked as Chametz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, they may eat it as Matzos or scalded.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the status of scalding?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it is Matzah, surely it may be eaten this way!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it is not Matzah, he does not fulfill 'Matzos 
               Te'achel...'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Really, it is Matzah. The Torah requires eating 
          proper Matzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Regarding what is scalding like Matzah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A person is Yotzei Matzah with it on Pesach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even though he first scalded it, since he later 
               baked it in an oven if is called 'Lechem Oni'.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO INHERITS THE DECEASED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one did Chalitzah to his Yevamah, he is 
          like a regular brother regarding inheritance. If the 
          father is alive, he inherits the deceased;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he did Yibum, he inherits the deceased;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, in any case, if the father is alive he 
          inherits the property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> This is obvious (that he is like a regular 
          brother)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> One might have thought that Chalitzah is in 
          place of Yibum, and he should inherit the deceased;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, why does it say that 'He is like one of 
          the brothers'? It should say 'he is <i>only</i> like one of 
          the brothers!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, one might have thought that since he 
          prevented her from doing Yibum, she should be punished. 
          The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the father is alive...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A father inherits before any of his descendants.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One who does Yibum (inherits the deceased).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is because he fulfilled 'Va'Yakam Al Shem 
               Achiv'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ula):</font></b> R. Yehudah learns from 'And the firstborn 
               that she will bear' - just like a firstborn does not 
               receive in the father's lifetime, also one who does 
               Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, we should say that just like a Bechor 
          receives a double portion when the father dies, also one 
          who does Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It does not say 'Va'Yakam Al Shem <i>Aviv</i> (his 
          father)', rather, 'Al Shem Achiv'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should say that there is a Mitzvah of Yibum 
          only when there is no father and he inherits the 
          deceased!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yibum does not depend on inheritance. He does 
          Yibum, and if he inherits, he inherits.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chanina Kara):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yanai:</font></b> Do not teach thusly in the Beis Medrash! The 
          Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (A reciter of teachings):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow R. 
          Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> Does the Halachah follow Chachamim? That is 
          obvious, we rule like the majority!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The reciter:</font></b> If so, I will discard this teaching.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> Do not discard it. You were taught that the 
          Halachah follows R. Yehudah. It was difficult to you (why 
          we follow an individual), so you switched it. You were 
          correct to do so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ISURIM' THAT RESULT FROM 'CHALITZAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Shimon died and Reuven did Chalitzah to 
          Leah, he is forbidden to her relatives, and she is 
          forbidden to his;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A MITZVAH PERFORMED WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa (39b) which discusses the Mitzvah of Yibum and the Mitzvah of eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah, the part of the Minchah offering not burned on the Mizbe'ach. The Beraisa states that these two Mitzvos involve some action which must be done in one way and not in another way. The Gemara explains that if the author of the Beraisa is Aba Shaul, the Beraisa's intention is to teach that an act of Yibum done in one manner is a Mitzvah, while an act of Yibum done in another manner is forbidden: when it is done with pure intentions for the sake of the fulfillment of the Mitzvah ('l'Shem Mitzvah'), it is a Mitzvah, but when it is done for impure motives ('she'Lo l'Shem Mitzvah'), it is forbidden.
</p><p>
The Gemara attempts to explain, in a similar manner, the statement of the Beraisa about the Mitzvah of eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah. The Gemara says that before the flour of the Minchah offering is sanctified, one is permitted to eat it. Once it has been sanctified, one is prohibited from eating it. When the Kometz of the Minchah is offered on the Mizbe'ach, the remaining flour of the Minchah becomes permitted to be eaten. One might have thought that the remaining Minchah may be eaten in the same manner in which it may be eaten before it was sanctified. Therefore, the Torah teaches 'l'Mitzvah' -- it must be eaten in the proper way and it may not be eaten in a different way.
</p><p>
The Beraisa does not specify in what 'other way' one might eat the Sheyarei ha'Minchah. What way of eating does the verse intend to exclude? The Gemara suggests that the verse excludes eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah with 'Achilah Gasah,' but it rejects that answer because 'Achilah Gasah' <i>never</i> constitutes an act of eating such that the verse should need to exclude it specifically with regard to the Sheyarei ha'Minchah. The Gemara concludes that the verse excludes eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah in a state of 'Chalut' (when boiling water was poured over it).
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> ask why the Gemara does not answer simply that the verse teaches that the Sheyarei ha'Minchah may not be eaten 'she'Lo l'Shem Mitzvah' (such as eating it to satisfy one's hunger, or to enjoy the taste), as the Gemara explains the manner in which Yibum may not be done. They answer that the Gemara does not give this answer because the Sheyarei ha'Minchah may be eaten with any intention; one does not need to eat it specifically 'l'Shem Mitzvah.' Only Yibum requires proper intention, because if one has intention to do the act for his own pleasure, he risks transgressing the severe Isur of 'Eshes Ach.' In contrast, one who eats the Minchah does nothing wrong when he eats it with intent to enjoy it and not 'l'Shem Mitzvah.'
</p><p>
This answer is difficult to understand.
</p><p>
(a) Why do Rashi and Tosfos assume that one may eat the Sheyarei ha'Minchah for his own personal benefit? Eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah with such intent should be forbidden because the Minchah is Hekdesh, sanctified. Although the Torah permits eating a sanctified item in this case, it should permit only eating it 'l'Shem Mitzvah,' lest one transgress the Isur against benefiting from Hekdesh.
</p><p>
(b) The Acharonim (see <b>KEREN ORAH</b>) ask that the answer of Rashi and Tosfos is inconsistent with the opinion that 'Mitzvos Tzerichos Kavanah' -- a person fulfills a Mitzvah only when he specifically intends to fulfill it (Pesachim 114b, Rosh Hashanah 28b). According to that opinion, why do Rashi and Tosfos assume that when one has intention to enjoy the food that he eats, he fulfills the Mitzvah of eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) There is a basic difference between the Mitzvah of Yibum and the Mitzvah of eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah. This difference may be understood based on an analysis of the dispute between Aba Shaul and the Chachamim. Aba Shaul states that when a man performs Yibum with impure intentions, he is considered 'Poge'a b'Ervah.' The Chachamim disagree and maintain that no Ervah is involved in the act. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in <b>TESHUVOS PE'ER HA'DOR</b> #146, cited by <b>MAHARAM ALSHAKER</b> #79; see also <b>PERUSH HA'MISHNAYOS</b> to Bechoros, end of chapter 1) explains that the Chachamim maintain that the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' was removed at the moment the brother died and his wife fell to Yibum. Consequently, the Yavam cannot be 'Poge'a b'Ervah' regardless of his intentions when he performs Yibum, because the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' was removed completely and nothing remains of it. Aba Shaul, on the other hand, maintains that the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' remains in force even after the brother died and his wife fell to Yibum. The Isur remains upon the woman until the act of Yibum is performed, at which time it is pushed aside (see Insights to Yevamos 7:1). (That is, Aba Shaul maintains that the Isur is 'Dechuyah' and not 'Hutrah.')
</p><p>
Accordingly, Aba Shaul cannot say that the Sheyarei ha'Minchah must be eaten 'l'Shem Mitzvah,' because in the case of the Sheyarei ha'Minchah the Isur of Hekdesh certainly was removed at the moment the Kometz was offered on the Mizbe'ach. Since the Isur of Hekdesh was already removed and nothing remains of it, there is no need to eat the Sheyarei ha'Minchah 'l'Shem Mitzvah.' (That is, the Isur of Hekdesh is 'Hutrah' and not 'Dechuyah.')
</p><p>
Moreover, the purpose of offering the Korban Minchah is not to eat it, but to burn the Minchah on the Mizbe'ach. A secondary part of that Mitzvah of offering the Minchah is that one eats the Sheyarei ha'Minchah. Accordingly, it is not logical to suggest that the Mitzvah of eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah is so important that the Torah allows it to override the Isur of eating Hekdesh. Rather, the Minchah is eaten <i>because</i> it became permitted at the moment the Kometz was offered on the Mizbe'ach; it did not become permitted <i>in order</i> to be eaten. The act of Yibum, in contrast, overrides the Isur of 'Eshes Ach.' 
</p><p>
(b) To answer the second question, the Acharonim suggest that the eating of the Sheyarei ha'Minchah does not require proper intent because the Mitzvah is not an obligation on the <i>person</i> which requires him to eat the Sheyarei ha'Minchah, but it is an obligation on the <i>Sheyarei ha'Minchah</i> which requires that the Minchah be eaten. Even if the person does not have proper intent to fulfill the Mitzvah, the Mitzvah is fulfilled as long as the Sheyarei ha'Minchah is eaten.
</p><p>
The <b>CHAZON ISH</b>, however, suggests a simpler answer. He explains that the words of Rashi and Tosfos are unrelated to the principle of 'Mitzvos Tzerichos Kavanah.' In the cases of Yibum and Achilas Minchah, one has in mind <i>both</i> to fulfill the Mitzvah <i>and</i> to derive personal pleasure. When Rashi writes that the Gemara does not explain that the verse teaches that the Sheyarei ha'Minchah must be eaten 'l'Shem Mitzvah' because the Sheyarei ha'Minchah may be eaten with any intention, he means that one may eat it <i>both</i> with intention to fulfill the Mitzvah <i>and</i> with intention to derive personal pleasure; intention to derive personal pleasure does not detract from the intention to fulfill the Mitzvah. Intention to fulfill the Mitzvah, however, certainly is necessary.
</p><p>
According to the Chazon Ish, why does the Gemara not explain that the case of eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah with improper intent is when one has intent <i>only</i> for pleasure and not for the Mitzvah?
</p><p>
The answer is that according to the opinion that 'Mitzvos Tzerichos Kavanah,' one who performs an act of a Mitzvah without intent to fulfill the Mitzvah certainly does not fulfill the Mitzvah; the verse of 'l'Mitzvah' is not necessary to teach that one must eat the Sheyarei ha'Minchah with intent to fulfill the Mitzvah. Accordingly, the Gemara must give a different explanation for what the verse of 'l'Mitzvah' teaches.
</p><p>
This approach may answer the original question as well. When Rashi and Tosfos write that one fulfills the Mitzvah even though he does not intend to eat the Sheyarei ha'Minchah 'l'Shem Mitzvah,' perhaps their statement is only according to the opinion that Mitzvos do <i>not</i> need Kavanah. It is not logical to assume that the Torah would explicitly prohibit eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah without intent to fulfill the Mitzvah; <i>every</i> Mitzvah must be done with intent 'l'Shem Mitzvah.'
</p><p>
According to the opinion that 'Mitzvos Tzerichos Kavanah,' however, there is another reason why the verse is not needed to teach that one does not fulfill the Mitzvah without Kavanah: one <i>never</i> fulfills the Mitzvah without Kavanah (as the Gemara says with regard to Achilah Gasah).
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  He may not marry her mother, grandmothers, daughter, 
          granddaughters, and not her sister in her lifetime;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The brothers are permitted to her relatives. She is 
          forbidden to Reuven's father, his father's father, his 
          son, his son's son, his brother, and his brother's son;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  A man is permitted to the relative of the Tzarah of his 
          Chalutzah, but forbidden to the Tzarah of the relative of 
          his Chalutzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Did Chachamim decree Sheniyos 
          regarding a Chalutzah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Did they forbid Sheniyos only of Ervah mid'Oraisa, 
               but not regarding a Chalutzah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, did they not distinguish (and decreed even 
               regarding a Chalutzah)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> Reuven is forbidden to Leah's 
          mother, grandmothers...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It does not list her mother's mother's mother 
               (because we did not decree)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Perhaps the great grandmother is really 
          forbidden. The Tana omitted it because the Seifa teaches 
          that the brothers are permitted to Leah's relatives. Had 
          the Reisha included the great grandmother, one might have 
          thought that the Seifa permits the brothers only to her, 
          but not to Leah's mother and grandmothers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It could have included the Isur of the great 
          grandmother, and said that the brothers are permitted to 
          all of them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is left difficult.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> Leah is forbidden to Reuven's 
          father, his father's father...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> She is forbidden to them due to Reuven. 
               Because of the Chalitzah, she is considered the 
               daughter-in-law of the son of Reuven's grandfather. 
               (This shows that we decreed Sheniyos regarding a 
               Chalutzah!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it is due to Shimon (she is truly Kalas 
          Beno of Shimon's grandfather).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Mishnah):</font></b> Leah is forbidden to (Kalev, 
          Reuven's) son's son.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This is due to Reuven. She is the wife 
               of Kalev's grandfather!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it is due to Shimon. She is truly the wife 
          of the brother of Kalev's grandfather.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But Ameimar permits the wife of the 
               brother of one's grandfather!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Ameimar will explain that <i>his</i> son's son in 
               the Mishnah refers to (Leah's nephew,) <i>Reuven's 
               father's</i> son's son (Reuven's father was mentioned 
               just before this).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, why does the Mishnah explicitly 
               forbid Reuven's brother and brother's son? (This is 
               'his son and his son's son'!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'Reuven's brother and his brother's son' 
               forbids maternal brothers and nephews.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya):</font></b> Four are forbidden mid'Oraisa, and four 
          mid'Rabanan. His father, son, brother and brother's son 
          are mid'Oraisa. His father's father, mother's father, the 
          son of his son, and the son of his daughter mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> The father of his father is due to the 
          Choletz, she is like his son's daughter-in-law (a 
          Sheniyah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it is due to the deceased (she truly is 
          his son's daughter-in-law).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> The father of his mother is due to the 
          Choletz, she is like his daughter's daughter-in-law (a 
          Sheniyah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it is due to the deceased.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> The son of his son is due to the Choletz, she 
          is like his father's father's wife (a Sheniyah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it is due to the deceased, she is like the 
          wife of the brother of his father's father.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But Ameimar permits the wife of the 
               brother of one's father's father!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Ameimar must say that it is due to the 
               Choletz, i.e. we decreed Sheniyos regarding a 
               Chalutzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> The son of his daughter is due to the 
          Choletz, she is like the wife of his mother's father (a 
          Sheniyah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(u)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, due to the deceased, she is the wife of 
          the brother of his mother's father.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(v)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the wife of the brother of one's mother's 
          father is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(w)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> Rather, we must say that it is due to the 
          Choletz. We did decree Sheniyos regarding a Chalutzah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ISURIM' AFTER 'CHALITZAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Tuvi bar Kisna):</font></b> If one had Bi'ah with the Tzarah of 
          his Chalutzah, the child is a Mamzer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is because she retains the Isur of Eshes Ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Rav Yosef - Mishnah):</font></b> A man is permitted to the 
          relative of Tzaras Chalutzaso.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the Tzarah is 'outside' (keeps her original Isur, 
               for the Chalutzah was not like her Shali'ach), we 
               understand why he may marry her sister.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But if the Tzarah is like the Chalutzah, he should 
               be forbidden to her sister (just like one is 
               forbidden to Achos Chalutzaso)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> This refutes R. Yochanan!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Neither the Choletz nor his brothers 
               are Chayav Kares for Bi'ah with the Chalutzah or the 
               Tzaros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Achos Chalutzaso is not forbidden mid'Oraisa. 
          (Therefore, even if the Tzarah is like the Chalutzah, we 
          need not say that the Choletz is forbidden to her 
          sister.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Rebbi taught (in the coming Mishnah) 
               that the sister of one's divorcee is forbidden 
               mid'Oraisa, but Achos Chalutzaso is forbidden 
               mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is the relative of Tzaras Chalutzaso 
          permitted, but the Tzarah of the relative of one's 
          Chalutzah is forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A Yevamah's relative (Rachel) accompanies her to 
          Beis Din (for Chalitzah), so Chachamim decreed that 
          Rachel's Tzarah not marry a brother (lest people think 
          that Rachel did Chalitzah, and if Rachel's Tzarah marries 
          a brother, it looks like Yibum after Chalitzah);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Yevamah's Tzarah does not accompany her to Beis 
               Din, so there is no need to decree.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ISURIM' AFTER 'CHALITZAH' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven did Chalitzah with Leah and then his 
          brother married her sister, then died, Reuven does 
          Chalitzah, not Yibum;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Similarly, if Reuven divorced his wife and then his 
          brother married her sister, then died, the widow is 
          exempt (from Chalitzah and Yibum);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, if Reuven was Mekadesh the 
          sister of his Yevamah we tell him to wait until his 
          brother (Shimon) does Yibum or Chalitzah. After that, he 
          may make Nisu'in;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If the Yevamah died, he may make Nisu'in. If Shimon died, 
          Reuven divorces his wife and does Chalitzah to the 
          Yevamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why does it say 'similarly'? (The 
          Halachah is different!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> It means '<i>But</i> if he divorced...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> In this Mishnah, Rebbi taught that the 
          Isur of the sister of one's divorcee is mid'Oraisa. The 
          sister of one's Chalutzah is only mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven was Mekadesh the sister of his 
          Yevamah...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah ben Beseira.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If Reuven's wife died, may he do Yibum?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> Yes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> No.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Rav holds that if a Yevamah was permitted, then 
          forbidden, and the Isur lapsed, she becomes permitted 
          again.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Hamnuna - Beraisa):</font></b> Reuven and Shimon were 
          married to Rachel and Leah (sisters); Levi (another 
          brother) was single. Reuven died, Levi gave a Ma'amar to 
          Rachel, and then Shimon died, and then Leah died. Rachel 
          does Chalitzah, not Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Why don't we say that she was permitted, forbidden, 
               and permitted again when the Isur (Achos Zekukaso) 
               lapses?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  Rava was silent.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava, after Rav Hamnuna left):</font></b> That Beraisa is 
          like R. Elazar, who holds that once a Yevamah was 
          forbidden, she remains forbidden forever.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction (Rava):</font></b> That is not a proper answer. R. Elazar 
          said so only when she was forbidden when she fell to 
          Yibum. Here, she was permitted when she fell, we have no 
          source that R. Elazar would forbid her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Defense (Rava):</font></b> Indeed, it is a proper answer. We have a 
          source!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Elazar):</font></b> If (a man was Mekadesh his 
               Yevamah's sister, and) his Yevamah died, he is 
               permitted to his wife. If his wife died, he does 
               Chalitzah, not Yibum to the Yevamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Shmuel (who said above that she is forbidden) 
          must hold like R. Elazar!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, he can hold like Chachamim (109a, who say 
          that if a man divorced his wife, remarried her, then 
          died, she may do Yibum);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim permit because she was not prohibited 
               after she fell to Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> In our Mishnah she became forbidden after she fell, 
               so Chachamim agree that she is forbidden!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WAITING BETWEEN MARRIAGES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Yevamah may not do Yibum or Chalitzah within 
          three months of the death of her husband;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Similarly, no woman may become Mekudeshes or married for 
          three months, whether or not she is a virgin, whether she 
          was divorced or widowed, from Nisu'in or Kidushin;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, if she was only Mekudeshes she may get 
          married. If she was married, she may become Mekudeshes. 
          This does not apply to Arusos in Yehudah, since they are 
          intimate with their husbands;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, all women may become Mekudeshes, but a 
          widow must wait until the Aveilus (mourning) over her 
          husband ends.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) YIBUM BETWEEN A YAVAM AND YEVAMAH WHO ARE FORBIDDEN TO EACH OTHER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah discusses a case in which a man died childless and his surviving brother married the Yevamah's sister before he performed Yibum with the Yevamah. The brother's wife (the Yevamah's sister) then died. The Gemara quotes Rav and Rebbi Chanina who rule that the brother may now perform Yibum with the Yevamah.
</p><p>
Why is there any obligation of Yibum in this case? After the woman fell to Yibum, she became exempt from Yibum because the Yavam married her sister and she became his 'Achos Ishto' (the sister of his wife). At that moment, she became permitted to marry anyone ('Muteres la'Shuk'). How can the obligation of Yibum return once she became permitted to marry anyone? The principle of 'Deracheha Darchei No'am' teaches that the ways of the Torah are ways of pleasantness, and it would not be pleasant for a woman who was exempt from Yibum (and was permitted to remarry) to become obligated to do Yibum (and need to separate from her husband if she already remarried) at a later time (87b; see Insights to Yevamos 30:1).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that the Yevamah is permitted to marry the brother (the widower of her deceased sister) <i>only</i> when there is a second living brother. Since there is another brother who is permitted to marry her, she never became released from the obligation of Yibum. Since she was permitted to marry the first brother at the moment she fell to Yibum, and since she was never released from the obligation of Yibum due to the presence of another brother, she becomes obligated to do Yibum with the first brother (to whom she became prohibited when he married her sister) when the reason for the prohibition is removed (i.e. at the death of his wife, the Yevamah's sister). (This may also be the opinion of <b>TOSFOS</b> in DH Mesah.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b>, however, infers from the Gemara that Rav's ruling applies even when there is no other Yavam. His ruling applies to all of the cases in the Mishnah, even to the last case in which the Yavam died and there clearly is no other Yavam except for the brother who married the Yevamah's sister. The Rashba, therefore, explains Rav's intention as follows. 
</p><p>
Rav does not mean that when the brother's wife (the Yevamah's sister) dies, the Yevamah falls to Yibum again. Rather, she indeed is exempt from Yibum because of the principle of 'Deracheha Darchei No'am.' Rav means that once a man becomes permitted to the wife of his brother ('Eshes Achiv') through the laws of Yibum, he never loses that Heter. This is in accordance with the statement of Rebbi Yochanan (10b) that even after one of the brothers performs Yibum, the other brothers retain the Heter to that woman and are not prohibited to marry her because of the Isur of 'Eshes Ach.' They are prohibited to marry her only because of the Isur of 'Lo Yivneh' (Devarim 25:9).
</p><p>
Similarly, in the case of the Mishnah here, although there was a period of time during which the Yavam was forbidden to the Yevamah (that is, while the Yavam's wife -- the Yevamah's sister -- was alive), the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' does not return. When his wife dies, the Yavam has the option of marrying the Yevamah not as a Yevamah but as an <i>ordinary wife</i>. When Rav says, '[Mesah Ishto,] Mutar b'Yevimto,' he does not mean that the brother may now do Yibum with the woman, but that he may now marry her as an ordinary wife.
</p><p>
(According to the Rashba, the Gemara apparently refers to a case in which the Yavam did not perform the Chalitzah, which the Mishnah requires, before his wife died. If he already performed Chalitzah, the Yevamah should be forbidden to him because of the prohibition of 'Lo Yivneh' which prohibits a person from remarrying his Chalutzah.)
</p><p>
It is unclear whether the Rashba suggests this explanation only according to Rebbi Yochanan (10b) who maintains that the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' does not return to the brothers after one of them performs Yibum or Chalitzah (and he means that Rav rules like Rebbi Yochanan). On one hand, his explanation does not seem to conform with the opinion of Reish Lakish who says that the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' <i>does</i> return to the brothers once one brother performs Yibum or Chalitzah. Perhaps the Rashba agrees that according to Reish Lakish, in the case of the Mishnah here the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' indeed returns when the brother's wife (the Yevamah's sister) dies. On the other hand, perhaps the Rashba gives his explanation even according to Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish says only that the Isur returns when one brother does Yibum or Chalitzah, at which time it becomes clarified retroactively that the woman was always bound specifically to that brother (who performed Yibum or Chalitzah with her) and not to the other brothers. However, when no brother ever fulfilled the Mitzvah (such as in the case of the Mishnah here), perhaps the Heter remains.
</p><p>
Proof for the latter approach may be adduced from the fact that the Gemara needs a verse to teach that the Yavam may divorce the Yevamah and then remarry her. According to the Rashba, a verse is not necessary to teach this, because Rav (and Rebbi Yochanan) maintain that it is obvious that the Yavam may remarry the Yevamah; logic dictates that the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' cannot return once it has been removed. Rather, the Gemara understands that one might have thought that after Yibum is performed and the Mitzvah fulfilled, the Heter is revoked and the Yevamah becomes prohibited to the brother again. Therefore, the verse must teach that the Heter remains (for the brother who performed Yibum according to Reish Lakish, and for all of the brothers according to Rebbi Yochanan; see also Insights to Yevamos 10:1). 
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Granted, she may not do Yibum within 
          three months, lest she is pregnant with a viable child, 
          and they transgress Eshes Ach mid'Oraisa;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But why is Chalitzah forbidden?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Our Mishnah refutes R. Yochanan, who 
               says that Chalitzah of a pregnant woman is valid.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> He was already refuted!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We suggest that also our Mishnah 
                    refutes him! (This is worse, for perhaps he did 
                    not know the Beraisa that refuted him, but 
                    surely he knew the Mishnah!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Our Mishnah is no refutation. Chalitzah is 
          forbidden lest she give birth to a viable child, and we 
          will need a proclamation that she is permitted to a 
          Kohen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is wrong with that?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> If someone saw the Chalitzah and did not 
               hear the proclamation, he will think that she is 
               forbidden to a Kohen (and perhaps she will marry a 
               Kohen)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> This applies to a regular widow. If she 
               was previously divorced (she is forbidden to a Kohen 
               in any case), she should do Chalitzah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Chalitzah deprives her of being fed (from 
               her husband's estate).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> This applies to one who to Yibum from 
               Nisu'in. If she fell from Kidushin (she is not fed), 
               how can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, the reason is like R. Yosi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> A man asked R. Yosi if he may do 
               Chalitzah within three months. R. Yosi said that he 
               may not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The man:</font></b> Why don't we do Chalitzah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yosi:</font></b> 'If he does not want to do Yibum' implies 
               that he could do Yibum if he wanted. Only one who 
               could do Yibum can do Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chinena - Beraisa):</font></b> All doubtful cases do 
          Chalitzah, not Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What are the doubtful cases?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> We do not know whether or not the 
                    Kidushin to the deceased was valid.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> They can do Yibum in any case! (If 
                    she was not Mekudeshes, this is regular 
                    Nisu'in.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, a man was Mekadesh one of two 
               sisters, and he does not know which one. The Beraisa 
               says that they do Chalitzah (even though Yibum is 
               forbidden)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is no difficulty! There, if Eliyahu would 
          tell us which he was Mekadesh, she could do Yibum or 
          Chalitzah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Here, even if Eliyahu would tell us that she is not 
               pregnant, we would not heed him and do Yibum!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A minor cannot be pregnant, yet even she may not do 
               Yibum within three months!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS A 'YEVAMAH' FED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A Yevamah is fed from the estate of the 
          deceased for three months. After this, she is not fed 
          from his property, nor from the Yavam's property;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the Yavam went to Beis Din (and was told to do 
               Yibum or Chalitzah) and fled, she is fed from his 
               property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If a woman falls to a Yavam who is a minor, she is not 
          fed from his property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is she fed from the property of the deceased?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Rav Acha and Ravina disagreed about this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, she is not fed. Shamayim punished her.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) SUMMARY: THE PRINCIPLE OF 'KOL HA'OLEH L'YIBUM, OLEH L'CHALITZAH'</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara discusses the principle, 'Kol ha'Oleh l'Yibum, Oleh l'Chalitzah' -- anyone who may perform Yibum may perform Chalitzah, and anyone who may not perform Yibum may not perform Chalitzah. The Gemara applies this principle to a Yevamah within three months after the death of her husband. Since she may not do Yibum (because of the requirement that she wait three months to verify that she is not pregnant), she also may not do Chalitzah.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the Gemara does not mean that if the Yevamah does Chalitzah within three months after the death of her husband, the Chalitzah does not take effect. Rather, the Gemara means that since it is possible to wait until she becomes fit for Yibum, l'Chatchilah she must wait and perform Chalitzah only after she becomes fit for Yibum. This application of the principle of 'Kol ha'Oleh l'Yibum...' differs from the way the Gemara has applied it until now. The Gemara discusses this principle with regard to several types of cases. These different types of cases can be grouped into six categories:
</p><p>
(a) <b>ISUR YIBUM MI'SAFEK</b>. The Gemara here discusses whether the principle applies in a case in which Yibum cannot be done because of a doubt, where details about the specific case are missing (such as within the first three months after the death of the husband, when there is a doubt whether or not she is pregnant and exempt from Yibum). <b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> explain that it is obvious that if her obligation to do Yibum or Chalitzah cannot be clarified at a later time, she certainly may perform Chalitzah out of doubt even though she may not do Yibum (since she might not be obligated).
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that even when it <i>is</i> possible to clarify the doubt at a later time, it still is not necessary to wait until that time to do Chalitzah. The Yevamah may do Chalitzah even l'Chatchilah during the time that her obligation is subject to doubt and she is not fit for Yibum. (The reason for this is that she might indeed be fit for Yibum and Chalitzah at this moment.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>ISUR YIBUM MID'RABANAN</b>. In a case in which the Chachamim prohibited Yibum, the law is that if the Chachamim's prohibition will not be removed at a later date, certainly she may perform Chalitzah immediately because, mid'Oraisa, the woman has an obligation to do Yibum and may not marry until she releases herself from that obligation. On the other hand, if the Chachamim's prohibition <i>will</i> be removed at a later date (such as when she has fulfilled their enactment to wait three months after her husband died before she does Yibum), l'Chatchilah she should not do Chalitzah until after the Chachamim's prohibition of Yibum is removed and she becomes fit to do Yibum.
</p><p>
(c) <b>ISUR NIDAH</b>. The third case is that of a woman who falls to Yibum while she is a Nidah. In such a case, Yibum is forbidden mid'Oraisa because she is a Nidah. The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> (2a) suggests that even if Yibum cannot take effect with a Nidah, nevertheless Chalitzah may be done with her while she is a Nidah. The reason for this is that the Isur of Nidah is expected to depart after the passage of a given amount of time. The bond of Zikah obligates her to do Yibum since she is expected to be fit to do Yibum later. As a result, she may do Chalitzah even now, during the time that she is a Nidah.
</p><p>
(Tosfos and the Rosh (2a) have a doubt about whether the act of Yibum is valid when a man performs Yibum while he transgresses the Isur d'Oraisa of Nidah. If the Yibum is valid b'Di'eved, a Yevamah who is a Nidah is considered fit to be 'Oleh l'Yibum' and she does not fall into the category of 'Kol she'Eino Oleh l'Yibum...,' even though performing Yibum with her l'Chatchilah is Asur mid'Oraisa.)
</p><p>
(d) <b>CHAYAVEI LAVIM</b>. The Gemara earlier (20a) states that when the Yavam is forbidden from doing Yibum with the Yevamah because of an Isur Lo Ta'aseh which prohibits her to him, he still may do Chalitzah even though an act of Yibum would not be valid even b'Di'eved. The Chalitzah is valid in this case because the Torah adds the word, 'Yevimto' (Devarim 25:7), which includes Chayavei Lavim in the obligation of Chalitzah while it exempts them from Yibum. The Rishonim there point out that the Gemara concludes that the Mitzvas Aseh of Yibum overrides the Lo Ta'aseh of an Isur Lav, and thus, mid'Oraisa, Chayavei Lavim <i>are</i> fit to do Yibum. However, the verse quoted there is used to teach a different exception to the principle of 'Kol she'Eino Oleh l'Yibum' -- the case of a woman who cannot do Yibum because she is forbidden to the Yavam with an Isur <i>Aseh</i> (such as a Be'ulah to a Kohen Gadol). The woman still has an obligation to do Chalitzah because of this verse, even though she is not fit for Yibum.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (3a, DH Havah Amina) apparently disregards this exception to the rule of 'Kol she'Eino Oleh l'Yibum....' Rashi writes that the Halachah of 'Choletzes v'Lo Misyabemes' (she must do Chalitzah and may not do Yibum) applies only when the woman is forbidden to the Yavam due to a Safek Isur. He mentions no other case in which 'Choletzes v'Lo Misyabemes' applies. It is understandable why Rashi omits the second category mentioned above, a case in which the Chachamim prohibited Yibum, as Rashi refers only to situations of 'Choletzes v'Lo Misyabemes' which are <i>mid'Oraisa</i> and the only such case is a Safek Isur. <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (in Gilyon ha'Shas) questions why Rashi ignores the cases of women who are forbidden to their Yavam because of a Chiyuv Aseh. In such cases, the Mitzvah of Yibum does not override the Isur and yet she is still required to do Chalitzah because of the verse, 'Yevimto.'
</p><p>
Perhaps the answer is that Rashi follows his own opinion as expressed elsewhere (Yevamos 9a, Sanhedrin 53a). Rashi maintains that when an Isur Lav prohibits a woman to the Yavam, she is prohibited <i>mid'Oraisa</i> from doing Yibum. That is, the principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh' does not apply to a case of Yibum. According to Rashi, if the Yavam transgresses the Chiyuv Lav or Chiyuv Aseh and has relations with the Yevamah, b'Di'eved the Yibum takes effect and he is Koneh her (see Insights to Yevamos 20:4). Although he transgressed an Isur, the Yibum takes effect (as Tosfos says with regard to Yibum with a Nidah, as mentioned above). Hence, she is considered 'Oleh l'Yibum,' and that is why she does Chalitzah. This explains why Rashi does not list the cases of Chiyuv Lav and Chiyuv Aseh as cases of 'Choletzes v'Lo Misyabemes'; Rashi refers only to cases where Yibum may not be done and where, b'Di'eved, if Yibum was done it does <i>not</i> take effect.
</p><p>
(e) <b>ME'UBERES</b>. Rava (36a) states that if Yibum may not be done with a pregnant Yevamah, Chalitzah also may not be done with her because she is not 'Oleh l'Yibum.' <b>RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN</b> (Kovetz He'oros 38:2) points out that this is not the classic case of 'Kol she'Eino Oleh l'Yibum, Eino Oleh l'Chalitzah,' because after the baby is found to be a stillborn certainly Yibum and Chalitzah may be done. Since the obligation of Yibum exists at that time, obviously Zikah of Yibum exists retroactively from the moment the Yevamah fell to Yibum when her husband died. This is also evident from the fact that the Yavam is not obligated to bring a Korban Chatas if he had relations with the Yevamah before her baby was found to be a stillborn (see Insights to Yevamos 35:2). Nevertheless, since he cannot actually have relations with her now, she is considered 'Eino Oleh l'Yibum.' This is why Rashi explains the principle of 'Kol she'Eino Oleh' slightly differently in that Sugya.
</p><p>
What is the difference between this case and the case of Nidah, in which Chalitzah may be done now since Yibum will be permitted later? The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> asks this question and answers that a Nidah is fully expected to become permitted later, while, in this case, there is no way of knowing whether the woman will be permitted to do Yibum later or not (it depends on whether the baby lives or dies). Therefore, it is a case of 'Eino Oleh l'Yibum.'
</p><p>
(f) <b>CHAYAVEI KERISUS</b>. When a woman cannot do Yibum because she is forbidden to the Yavam with an Isur Kares (for example, she is 'Achos Ishto,' the sister of his wife), the Torah exempts her from Chalitzah as well as Yibum: since she has no 'Zikah for Yibum' she has no 'Zikah for Chalitzah' (20a). Similarly, after the brother does Yibum with one of the Yevamos (44a), he may not do Yibum with her Tzarah because of the rule that 'Bayis Echad Hu Boneh' -- one may build only one 'house' for his brother (by doing Yibum with one of his wives) and not two. Consequently, one cannot do Chalitzah with the second wife because there is no longer any Zikah of Yibum to that wife. (This is the classic case of 'Kol she'Eino Oleh l'Yibum, Eino Oleh l'Chalitzah.')
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE WAITING PERIOD BEFORE REMARRYING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Yevamah did Chalitzah within three 
          months, she must wait three months. If she did Chalitzah 
          after three months, she need not wait three months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The three months are counted from her husband's death, 
          not from the day of Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is this different than a Get (according to 
          Rav)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> (We count the three months before a divorcee 
               may remarry) from the giving of the Get (even though 
               they did not have Bi'ah from when the Get was 
               written);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> (We count) from the day it was written.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> If we permit (Yibum three months after 
          death, even though if she is pregnant they transgress 
          Eshes Ach, which is) Chayavei Kerisos, all the more so we 
          permit (a Chalutzah to remarry three months after death, 
          for even if she was pregnant and the Chalitzah was 
          invalid, this is only) Chayavei Lavin! (Tosfos - if we 
          would tell a Chalutzah to be more stringent, people would 
          not listen.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Also, all other women... (must wait three 
          months).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We explained why a Yevamah must wait three 
          months. Why must other women wait?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> (Rav Nachman): 'Lihyos Lecha l'Eilokim 
          ul'Zar'acha Acharecha' - we must distinguish between the 
          seed of the first and second husbands (the Shechinah 
          rests only on people who are certain about their 
          lineage).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> ... Therefore, a couple that 
          converted must wait three months.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We know that he is the father!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We need to distinguish whether the baby was 
          conceived before or after conversion.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to Question (d) - Rava):</font></b> We decree lest a man 
          marry his paternal sister (if he thinks that he is from 
          the other father), do Yibum with the wife of his maternal 
          brother (if he thinks that he is a full brother), lest 
          his mother think that she is exempt from Yibum and 
          Chalitzah (if she thinks that he is the son of the 
          deceased), and lest his widow remarry without Yibum or 
          Chalitzah (if she thinks that her husband had no 
          brother).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chananyah - Beraisa):</font></b> All the other decrees 
          are because of Ervah. This decree is to fix the child.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to Rava, all are because of Ervah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This decree is to fix the child, lest he marry 
          Ervah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>IDENTIFYING THE FATHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, it does not help to wait two months. 
          If a baby is born seven months later, we will not know if 
          it is a nine-month baby from the first husband, or a 
          seven-month baby from the second. But it should be 
          permitted to marry after one month!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a baby is born after seven months, it must be 
               from the second husband. If a baby is born after 
               eight months, it must be a nine-month baby from the 
               first husband (an eight-month baby is always a 
               Nefel)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Even if it is born after eight months, it could 
          be a seven-month baby (i.e. it developed fully in seven 
          months) from the second husband that delayed a month 
          before being born.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> She should be permitted to marry after two and 
          a half months!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a baby is born after seven months, it must be 
               from the second husband!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If a baby is born after six and a half months, it 
               must be a nine-month baby from the first husband, 
               for a six and a half-month baby from the second 
               husband would not live!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, a six and a half-month baby from the second 
          husband could live;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mar Zutra):</font></b> Even the opinion that says that a 
               nine-month baby is always born after nine full 
               months agrees that a seven-month baby may be born 
               during the seventh month.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'Va'Yhi li'Skufas ha'Yamim (and Chanah gave birth)' 
               - 'Tekufos' means at least two (seasons, six months 
               in all) and 'days' means at least two.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should permit her after a very short wait, 
          and check if she is pregnant after three months!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Safra):</font></b> We do not check if a married woman is 
          pregnant, lest she be disgraced in the eyes of her 
          husband.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We can check her footprints (a pregnant 
               woman sinks deeper into loose dirt. This is no 
               disgrace!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> She will walk specially to cover up the 
               pregnancy, in order that her son should inherit her 
               new husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why don't we permit her when we know that she 
          is pregnant?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Reuven may not marry a woman pregnant 
               from Shimon or nursing a baby from Shimon. If he 
               did, he must divorce her and may never remarry her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> This is a decree lest the fetus get mashed 
          (due to the semen or another pregnancy - see 12b).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This concern applies equally to Bi'ah with 
          one's wife when she is pregnant from him (yet this is 
          permitted)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One opinion says that they use a wad to avoid 
               pregnancy. The other says that (they do nothing 
               different, and) Hash-m will have mercy (and prevent 
               pregnancy). These apply also when she is pregnant 
               from a different man!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, we are concerned that Bi'ah will harm 
          the fetus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The same concern applies when she is pregnant 
          from him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Then, a man is careful because he cares about the 
          fetus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Also here he cares about the fetus (he does 
          not want to kill it)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> Rather, a pregnant woman needs to nurse the 
          baby after it is born. If she becomes pregnant, her milk 
          will cease and the baby will starve.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'BESULOS,' 'BE'ULOS,' 'ARUSOS,' AND 'NESU'OS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah lists the women who must wait three months after the death (or divorce) of their husbands before they may remarry or do Yibum. The Gemara asks why the Mishnah lists both pairs, 'Besulos and Be'ulos' and 'Arusos and Nesu'os,' when they are the same -- 'Besulos' and 'Arusos' are the same, and 'Be'ulos' and 'Nesu'os' are the same. <b>RASHI</b> explains that since the only way in which a woman can be widowed or divorced as a Besulah is when she was only an <i>Arusah</i> to her husband, 'Besulos' and 'Arusos' are the same.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the Mishnah refers only to one pair of cases, 'Besulos and Be'ulos.' The Mishnah means that both Besulos and Be'ulos -- who are women who became widows either as Arusos or Nesu'os -- must wait three months. 
</p><p>
The Gemara's question and answer are difficult to understand.
</p><p>
(a) Why does the Gemara assume in its question that if the woman is a Besulah she must have been only an Arusah to her previous husband? It is possible for a woman to be a Besulah <i>and</i> a Nesu'ah, such as when her husband did not live with her after the Chupah! (<b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>)
</p><p>
(b) Also, the Gemara's answer -- that the words 'Arusos and Nesu'os' in the Mishnah are intended as an <i>explanation</i> for the earlier terms 'Besulos and Be'ulos' -- is unclear. Why does the Mishnah need to explain 'Besulos and Be'ulos'? The Gemara itself assumed in its question that the word 'Besulos' must refer to a woman who was only an Arusah. Why does the Mishnah need to explain something which is obvious?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Gemara understood in its question that even if 'Besulos' refers to a Nesu'ah who did not live with her husband after the Chupah, the wording of the Mishnah is still problematic. There is no point in mentioning 'Besulos' and 'Be'ulos' at all. The Mishnah should have said merely that 'Arusos and Nesu'os must wait three months,' and all of the women would have been included in that statement.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the terms 'Arusos and Nesu'os' explain the terms 'Besulos and Be'ulos.' The term 'Besulos' refers to a woman who was an Arusah with her first husband. If she became a Nesu'ah (through Chupah) but did not yet have relations, she is <i>not</i> called a Besulah. Rather, she is in the category of a Be'ulah even though she never had relations.
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah emphasize this point? What difference does it make if all women must wait three months? The answer is that it makes a difference according to the opinion of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Yehudah who maintain that an Arusah (i.e. a Besulah) does <i>not</i> need to wait three months. They will agree that in the case of a Besulah who became a Nesu'ah (through Chupah) and did not have relations, the woman is considered a Be'ulah and must wait three months. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> writes that <b>RASHI</b> in Eruvin (47a, DH Achas Besulos) explains the Gemara's answer differently. The Gemara means that the Mishnah requires a woman to wait three months after her <i>second</i> husband dies, whether she was a Besulah or Be'ulah when she married her <i>first</i> husband (who died or divorced her). The Mishnah continues and says that she must wait three months regardless of whether her second husband died (or divorced her) after Erusin or after Nisu'in.
</p><p>
This explanation is more consistent with the words of the Gemara. According to the first explanation for the Gemara (in (a) above), the Gemara should have said explicitly that the second part of the Mishnah 'is explaining' the first part -- 'Perushei Ka Mefaresh.'
</p><p>
However, according to this explanation, why does the woman's status in her <i>first</i> marriage affect whether or not she must wait three months after the end of her <i>second</i> marriage? If she was an Arusah from the second marriage, what difference does it make if she was a Be'ulah from the first marriage? Her status in her first marriage is inconsequential to her status now (i.e. she is certainly not pregnant from her first husband)! (<b>NEHOR SHRAGA</b>)
</p><p>
The answer may be as follows. Had the Mishnah mentioned only Arusos who are <i>Be'ulos</i> from a previous marriage, one would have thought that the Gezeirah requires that only such women wait three months, because people know that Nisu'in was done with one husband and they might confuse the second husband with the first. The Mishnah teaches that even if a woman was a Besulah from both marriages (even from the first), she still must wait three months.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The same applies when she is pregnant from 
          him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> She will feed him eggs and milk.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> She will do the same even if it is not his 
          child!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Her husband will not give her money for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> She can demand money for this from the heirs of 
          her first husband!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> A woman is embarrassed to come to Beis 
          Din. She will (passively) kill her son.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE FINAL RULING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> This is whether or not she is a virgin... 
          (whether she was previously Mekudeshes or Nesu'ah...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> These are synonymous! (Why does the Mishnah say 
          both?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Mishnah explains itself. She 
          must wait whether or not she is a virgin, i.e. whether 
          she was widowed or divorced from Kidushin or Nisu'in.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar did not go to the Beis Medrash. He asked Rav 
          Asi what was taught there.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Asi:</font></b> R. Yochanan ruled like R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Elazar:</font></b> Does this mean that a lone opinion disagrees 
          with him?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Asi:</font></b> Yes!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> A woman must wait three months 
               before remarrying, (even) in the following cases 
               (even though it is unlikely or impossible that she 
               is pregnant): she was constantly going to her 
               father's home, or was quarreling with her husband;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Her husband was imprisoned, or too old to have 
                    children, or sick;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> She was sick, or miscarried after her husband 
                    died, or her womb was uprooted;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>She was too old to have children, or a minor, 
                    or an Ailonis, or sterile.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah (some texts - R. Yosi) permits her to 
               marry immediately.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> R. Yochanan retracted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> If he retracted, it was due to the following 
          Beraisa:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben 
               Berokah):</font></b> Chachamim in Kerem b'Yavneh require all to 
               wait three months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> Did R. Yochanan really say that 
          the Halachah follows R. Yosi? R. Yochanan said that the 
          Halachah follows a Stam (anonymous) Mishnah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> Any woman may not get married or 
               Mekudeshes for three months, whether or not she is a 
               virgin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> This is a poor question! This Stam 
          Mishnah is followed by a Machlokes (a Mishnah in which 
          Tana'im argue about the law). In such a case, the 
          Halachah is not (necessarily) like the Stam Mishnah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Papa or R. Yochanan):</font></b> If there is a Machlokes 
               and later a Stam Mishnah, the Halachah follows the 
               Stam. If the Stam precedes the Machlokes, the 
               Halachah is not (necessarily) like the Stam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Nachum):</font></b> If a Machlokes is followed by a 
          Stam, how do we rule?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> The Halachah follows the Stam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Nachum):</font></b> What if the Stam precedes the 
          argument?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> The Halachah is not (necessarily) like 
          the Stam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Nachum):</font></b> If there is a Stam Mishnah and a 
          Machlokes in a Beraisa, how do we rule?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> The Halachah follows the Stam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Nachum):</font></b> If there is a Machlokes in the 
          Mishnah and a Stam Beraisa, how do we rule?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> If Rebbi (who wrote the Mishnah) did 
          not decide the law, how could R. Chiya (his Talmid, who 
          codified Beraisos) decide?!
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS THERE A 'STAM' 'MISHNAH' THAT WE DO NOT FOLLOW?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Nachum):</font></b> Sometimes the Halachah does not 
          follow a Stam Mishnah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a flax comb is missing teeth, if two 
               teeth remain, they can become Tamei. If one tooth 
               remains, it is Tahor;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Each tooth that is taken from the comb is Tamei;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If every alternate tooth was taken from a wool comb, 
               it is Tahor. If three remain in one place, it is 
               Tamei. If one of them is the end tooth, it is Tahor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> If two were taken and they were made into tongs they 
               are Tamei. If one was taken and fixed for a lamp or 
               for stretching parchment, it is Tamei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Summation of question):</font></b> Even though this is a Stam 
               Mishnah, the Halachah does not follow it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> This Mishnah is an exception. R. 
          Yochanan and Reish Lakish both said that it is not an 
          authentic Mishnah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did they say so?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach):</font></b> The Reisha contradicts 
          the Seifa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'If every alternate tooth was taken from a wool 
               comb, it is Tahor' implies that if two remain 
               together, it is Tamei;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'If three remain in one place it is Tamei' implies 
               that if two remain together it is Tahor!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This is not difficult. Perhaps if one of the 
          two is the end tooth it is Tahor (for it is not useful), 
          and if not it is Tamei!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, the Reisha says that an individual 
          tooth taken is Tamei, even if it was not fixed for usage. 
          The Seifa says that it was prepared for a lamp or for 
          stretching it is Tamei, implies that if it was not 
          prepared, it is Tahor!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #1 (Abaye):</font></b> This is not difficult. A tooth 
          removed with a small wooden holder is Tamei without 
          further preparation. If it lacks this, it is Tahor until 
          it is prepared!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> We can say that strong teeth 
          need no preparation, but weak teeth need preparation!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> Rather, the correct text of the Mishnah 
          concludes 'this is R. Shimon's opinion' (it is not a Stam 
          Mishnah).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW LONG MUST ONE WAIT BEFORE 'KIDUSHIN'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> We may Mekadesh within three months. 
          We do so in practice.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> It suffices to wait the majority of the 
          first and third months, and the entire second month.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Ameimar permitted to be Mekadesh on the 90th day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> But Rav and Shmuel say that she 
          must wait three months, excluding the day of death and 
          day of Kidushin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They said so (we exclude the first and last day) 
          regarding a nursing woman:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> A nursing woman must wait 24 
               months (before remarrying), excluding the day the 
               baby was born and the day of Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> But a man made a Kidushin feast on the 90th 
          day, and Rava canceled it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That was a wedding feast.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, a nursing mother must wait 24 months, 
          excluding the day of birth and day of Kidushin;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  All must wait three months, excluding the day of death 
          and day of Kidushin.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ISURIM' OF 'AVEILUS</font></b>
'(a)	(Mishnah - R. Yosi): (Anyone may become Mekudeshes) except 
     for a widow (due to Aveilus).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If Kidushin is permitted when one 
          may not launder, all the more so it is permitted when one 
          may launder!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Chisda refers to the following Mishnah and 
               Beraisa:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> It is forbidden to cut hair or launder in 
               the week (starting from Shabbos) in which Tishah 
               b'Av falls. It is permitted on Thursday, for the 
               honor of Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Before this time (Tishah b'Av), we 
               decrease work, commerce, building, and planting. We 
               may Mekadesh, but we do not have Nisu'in or Se'udas 
               Eirusin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa permits Kidushin <i>before the week 
          before</i> Tishah b'Av (laundering is permitted then).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> We still have a Kal va'Chomer!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (From Rosh Chodesh Av but) before the week we may 
               not do business, but Kidushin is permitted. When 
               business is permitted (an Avel within 30 days), all 
               the more so Kidushin is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> The Mishnah should say that R. Yosi permits 
          all women to get <i>married</i> (except for a widow).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHY IS 'ERUSIN' PERMITTED DURING THE WEEK OF TISH'AH B'AV?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Chisda cites the Mishnah in Ta'anis (26b) which states that Erusin may be performed during the week in which Tish'ah b'Av falls. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mutar l'Ares) explains that 'this is because Erusin is not a Simchah.'
</p><p>
Rav Chisda then cites a Beraisa which states that before Tish'ah b'Av, people must decrease their activity in business, construction, and agriculture. They may perform Erusin but not Nisu'in or conduct a Se'udas Erusin. <b>RASHI</b> (DH u'Me'arsin) explains that 'this is because it is not a Simchah, and because one performs a Mitzvah.'
</p><p>
Why does Rashi here add the reason that 'one performs a Mitzvah' with Erusin, but he does not mention it in his earlier comment? Moreover, what difference does it make if Erusin is a Mitzvah? Since, as Rashi explains, it is not 'Simchah,' it should be permitted regardless of whether it is a Mitzvah or not.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi is bothered by the wording of the Beraisa. The Beraisa states that Erusin is permitted, but not Nisu'in or a Se'udas Erusin. If the reason why Erusin is permitted is because no Simchah is involved, then why does the Beraisa need to teach that one may not perform Nisu'in or make a Se'udas Erusin? Those activities obviously are prohibited because they <i>do</i> have Simchah (as the Gemara says on 43b, that it is obvious that Nisu'in is prohibited because it has Simchah)! Why does the Beraisa need to specify that Nisu'in and Se'udas Erusin are prohibited?
</p><p>
It must be that Erusin involves some degree of Simchah. When the Gemara (43b) states that without a Se'udah there is no Simchah with Erusin, it means that Erusin does not involve the same degree of Simchah as Nisu'in (as the <b>TAZ</b> OC 551:3 says). The reason Erusin is permitted, despite the Simchah involved, is that when a person does Erusin he fulfills a Mitzvah. 
</p><p>
This explains why the Beraisa must add that Nisu'in and a Se'udas Erusin are prohibited. Since those activities are also Mitzvos, one might have thought that they are also permitted because of the Mitzvah involved, despite the fact that they have Simchah. The Beraisa teaches that since the Simchah of those activities is so great, they are not permitted even though they involve the performance of Mitzvos. This is Rashi's intention when he adds the fact that Erusin is a Mitzvah. 
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is R. Yosi not concerned for discerning the 
          father?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Indeed, he is not concerned!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> He is concerned. The Mishnah should say that 
          anyone divorced from Kidushin may remarry (but a widow 
          may not).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> That is R. Yehudah's opinion!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about whether or not a divorcee from 
          Nisu'in may become Mekudeshes. R. Yehudah permits, and R. 
          Yosi forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yosi permits this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> All women may become 
               Mekudeshes, except for a widow, who must wait 30 
               days because of Aveilus. All may not have Nisu'in 
               until three months.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> This is no more conclusive than the 
               Mishnah, which also says 'All women', and we 
               established that it discusses divorcees from 
               Kidushin!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Seifa forbids Nisu'in until three 
               months. This implies that Kidushin is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Explain the Beraisa thusly: R. Yosi 
          permits divorcees from Kidushin to have Nisu'in. Widows 
          must wait 30 days because of Aveilus. Women that were 
          married may not become Mekudeshes for three months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A widow from Kidushin does not mourn over her 
          husband!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chiya bar Ami - Beraisa):</font></b> If an Arusah died, the 
               Arus is not considered an Onen (a mourner before 
               burial of the Mes) and he need not become Tamei 
               amidst burying her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Similarly, if he died she is not an Onenes and need 
               not become Temei'ah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If she dies, he does not inherit her. If he dies, 
               she collects her Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Tana'im argue about whether or not a woman may 
          become Mekudeshes during Aveilus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> From the first of Av until Tishah b'Av we 
               diminish business, commerce, building, planting, 
               Kidushin, and Nisu'in;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The week of Tishah b'Av it is forbidden to cut hair 
               and launder;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Some say that the entire month is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Perhaps the Beraisa forbids only 
          Se'udas Eirusin, but Kidushin itself is permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, also regarding Nisu'in we must say 
               that only the meal is forbidden, but Nisu'in itself 
               is permitted (but this is not true)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That is not comparable. Nisu'in is joyous 
               even without a meal, but Kidushin is not!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Rather, we are more stringent about 
          the loss of a spouse, since this is a new Aveilus, and it 
          is of an individual. The Aveilus over the Churban is an 
          old Aveilus of the Tzibur, so we are lenient.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE MAY DO 'YIBUM' WITH MANY WOMEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If four brothers were married to four women 
          and the brothers died, if the oldest brother wants he may 
          do Yibum to all of them (this will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A man that was married to two women and died, Yibum or 
          Chalitzah of one exempts the other.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PERSONAL 'AVEILUS' AND A NATIONAL 'AVEILUS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah (41a), Rebbi Yosi permits a woman (who was divorced) to do Erusin with a second husband immediately without having to wait three months. The only exception is a woman whose husband died, in which case the woman must wait before she remarries, not because of the requirement of 'Havchanah' but because of her Aveilus.
</p><p>
Rav Chisda and Rava (43a) ask that Erusin for a woman observing Aveilus should be permitted because of a Kal v'Chomer: one is permitted to engage in business during Aveilus but is required to decrease his involvement in business during the days before Tish'ah b'Av. Accordingly, Erusin, which is <i>permitted</i> during the days before Tish'ah b'Av, certainly should be permitted during Aveilus. If the laws of Tish'ah b'Av are more stringent than the laws of Aveilus, Erusin -- which is permitted before Tish'ah b'Av -- certainly should be permitted during Aveilus.
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that 'Aveilus Chadashah differs from Aveilus Yeshanah, and Aveilus d'Rabim differs from Aveilus d'Yachid.' <b>RASHI</b> explains that this means that the period before Tish'ah b'Av is more lenient with regard to Erusin because it is a weaker form of Aveilus, since it is an 'old' Aveilus (to which people have become accustomed) and it is a 'public' Aveilus (and thus people are able to alleviate their grief by sharing it with others).
</p><p>
Although the Gemara's answer explains why Erusin is prohibited during personal Aveilus but permitted during the week of Tish'ah b'Av, it does not explain why business is <i>permitted</i> during Aveilus but <i>prohibited</i> before Tish'ah b'Av. If the Aveilus of Tish'ah b'Av is more lenient as the Gemara assumes, then business -- which is permitted during the more stringent period of personal Aveilus -- should be <i>permitted</i> before Tish'ah b'Av. (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Sha'ani)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (cited by Tosfos) answers that the Gemara is not making one statement about the period of Aveilus before Tish'ah b'Av, with two reasons for why that period is lenient. Rather, the Gemara is making <i>two</i> statements about why the laws of Erusin differ from the laws of business. (This understanding is supported by the wording of the Gemara. The Gemara uses the word 'Sha'ani' ('it differs') twice, instead of including both differences in one clause.) The first statement refers to Erusin and teaches that since Tish'ah b'Av is an 'Aveilus Yeshanah' it is not as stringent as an 'Aveilus Chadashah,' and thus Erusin is permitted before Tish'ah b'Av. The second statement refers to business and teaches that since Tish'ah b'Av is an 'Aveilus d'Rabim' one must be <i>more</i> stringent with regard to acts done in public and acts done for long durations of time. If such acts would be permitted, everyone would see the other person going to work and would assume that work is entirely permitted, and no one would mourn for Yerushalayim. That is why business is prohibited on days of public Aveilus but permitted on days of personal Aveilus. The act of Erusin, in contrast, is not done in public and lasts only for a moment. Permitting Erusin on a day of 'Aveilus d'Rabim' will not cause people to neglect mourning for Yerushalayim. 
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b>, however, understands the Gemara differently. He explains that the Aveilus of Tish'ah b'Av is more lenient in two ways -- it is 'Yeshanah' and it is 'd'Rabim.'
</p><p>
According to Rashi, how does the Gemara answer its question of why business is permitted during personal Aveilus but prohibited during the Aveilus of Tish'ah b'Av, if Tish'ah b'Av is a more lenient type of Aveilus?
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi understands the Gemara in a way similar to that of Rabeinu Tam, that Tish'ah b'Av is more stringent with regard to business, but for a different reason than the one Rabeinu Tam gives. According to Rashi, the very fact that Tish'ah b'Av is not a personal Aveilus requires that efforts be made to help arouse people to mourn. The Chachamim made certain enactments to help people focus on the Aveilus and ponder the loss of Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash. They prohibited activities which cause people to take their minds off of mourning, such as business. (Accordingly, the prohibition against business may not be a specific expression of Aveilus at all.) The Chachamim did not prohibit Erusin on such days because Erusin is a momentary act that does not detract from one's focus on mourning for Yerushalayim. In contrast, during an 'Aveilus Chadashah,' since the Aveilus is personal the Avel will not become distracted from his Aveilus by involvement in business.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and other Rishonim explain, like Rabeinu Tam, that the two differences -- 'Aveilus Yeshanah' and 'Aveilus d'Rabim' -- relate to the two different Halachos of Erusin and business activity. However, they give a different logic for why the Gemara is more stringent with regard to business during the days before Tish'ah b'Av than during days of personal Aveilus. They explain that business is prohibited before Tish'ah b'Av not because Tish'ah b'Av is an 'Aveilus d'Rabim' but because it is an 'Aveilus Yeshanah.' Since it is an 'Aveilus Yeshanah' people tend to treat it more leniently than a normal Aveilus. In order to ensure that people would take the Aveilus seriously, the Chachamim prohibited business during those days. In contrast, they permitted Erusin because Erusin does not involve Simchah. (This differs from the approach suggested for the words of Rashi on 43a; see previous Insight.) The only reason why the Chachamim prohibited Erusin in a case of normal Aveilus was a Gezeirah lest one perform Nisu'in or lest one make a Se'udas Erusin. During the period before Tish'ah b'Av, since it is an Aveilus <i>d'Rabim</i> no such Gezeirah is necessary; permitting Erusin will <i>not</i> lead to Nisu'in or to making a Se'udas Erusin. This is because the person who performs the Erusin needs others to join him to perform Nisu'in or to make a Se'udah, but they will not join him because they are involved in the Aveilus d'Rabim of Tish'ah b'Av.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>ME'IRI</b> explains, like the Ramban, that 'Aveilus d'Rabim' refers to why business is prohibited during the days before Tish'ah b'Av. Since people tend to be lenient on such days, the Chachamim were stringent and prohibited business. He explains, however, that the reason why those days are more lenient with regard to Erusin is that if the Chachamim would have prohibited Erusin during those days, one with a strong desire to betroth a certain woman would ignore the Chachamim. The Chachamim could enact stringent decrees only for activities in which people have no emotional involvement, such as business.
</p><p>
(Tosfos cites <b>RABEINU NISIM GA'ON</b> (in <b>MEGILAS SETARIM</b>) who states that Erusin is permitted not only 'Kodem d'Kodem,' before the week in which Tish'ah b'Av falls, but it is permitted even during the week in which Tish'ah b'Av falls, and even on Tish'ah b'Av itself. Although both business and laundering clothes are prohibited during that period and are <i>permitted</i> during a normal Aveilus, nevertheless the Chachamim were lenient with Erusin because of the reasons mentioned above: with regard to Erusin, a normal Aveilus is more stringent, and with regard to business or laundering, an Aveilus d'Rabim is more stringent. All of the reasons above apply not only to prohibit business but to prohibit laundering as well.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE MAY DO 'YIBUM' WITH MANY WOMEN (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Continuation of Mishnah):</font></b> If one Yevamah was Kesherah 
          (to Kehunah), and the other was Pesulah, if he does 
          Chalitzah, he does it with the Pesulah. If he does Yibum, 
          he does so with the Kesherah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Can it be that there were only four 
          brothers? (If so, who survived to do Yibum?!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> The Mishnah means, four of the brothers...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He may do Yibum to all four if he wants...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We would discourage him (because he will not be 
          able to support them)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'The elders of his city call to him' - 
               themselves, not their messengers. 'And they speak to 
               him' - they give him proper counsel;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the Yavam is young and the Yevamah is old or 
                    vice-versa, they discourage Yibum - 'marry 
                    someone your own age, and do not invite 
                    quarrels into your home'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If he can support four wives, we allow him to do 
          Yibum to all four.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he is able, he can do Yibum with even more!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Proper counsel is not to exceed four, so each 
          will have Bi'ah with him (one Shabbos) every month.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONLY ONE WOMAN DOES 'YIBUM' OR 'CHALITZAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man was married to two women...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why can't the Yavam do Yibum to both?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> 'That will not build the house 
          of his brother' - he builds one house, not two.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Let him do Chalitzah to both!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Mar Zutra bar Tuvya):</font></b> 'The house of the one 
          whose shoe was removed' - he does Chalitzah to one house, 
          not two.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Let him do Yibum to one, and Chalitzah to the 
          other!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> 'If he does not want' Chalitzah is only for 
          one who could do Yibum if he wanted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> We do not want people to say that a house is 
          partially built and partially Chalutz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is wrong if they say that?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> If they would do Yibum first, there would be 
               no problem. We are concerned lest they do Chalitzah 
               and then Yibum, transgressing '(Since he did not 
               build), he may not build'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> We should say that there is a Mitzvah of 
          Yibum when there is one Yevamah, but when there are two 
          Yevamos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, why did the Torah need to forbid 
               Tzaras Ervah?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If Yibum and Chalitzah never apply to two 
                    Yevamos, all Tzaros are exempt!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It needs to teach about Tzaras Ervah. One 
               might have thought that it is as if the Ervah did 
               not fall to Yibum, so the Tzarah may do Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The verse says 'Yevamah' twice, teaching that 
          Yibum applies even when there are two Yevamos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one Yevamah... (he does Chalitzah with the 
          Pesulah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> In this Mishnah, Rebbi taught that one 
          should not spill his well water if others need it 
          (Chalitzah to the Kesherah would disqualify her to a 
          Kohen).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>RELATIVES OF THE 'CHALUTZAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Akiva):</font></b> If one was Machazir Gerushaso 
          (remarried his ex-wife after she married someone else), 
          or married his Chalutzah or Krovas Chalutzaso (one of her 
          close relatives), he must divorce her. The child is a 
          Mamzer;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say that the child is not a Mamzer. They agree 
          that if he married the relative of his ex-wife that the 
          child is a Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Does R. Akiva really hold that a 
          Mamzer results from marrying Krovas Chalutzaso?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Rebbi taught (in the Mishnah 41a) 
               that the sister of Chalutzaso is forbidden only 
               mid'Rabanan!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> The Mishnah should say that Krovas Gerushaso.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Seifa):</font></b> Chachamim agree that Krovas Gerushaso 
          produces a Mamzer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is reasonable to say that Chachamim <i>admit</i> only 
               if R. Akiva discussed this case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps Chachamim come to teach that Mamzerim 
          result from Chayavei Kerisus!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Another Mishnah (49a) already teaches this:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Akiva):</font></b> All Chayavei Lavin produce 
               Mamzerim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ha'Temani says, Chayavei Kerisus produce 
               Mamzerim. This is the Halachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps our Mishnah gives R. Shimon ha'Temani's 
          opinion Stam (anonymously, to show that this is the law)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> If so, it should teach other Chayavei Kerisus. 
          Surely, it taught Krovas Gerushaso because R. Akiva 
          discussed this case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We need not say that R. Akiva discussed it! 
          Rather, since he discussed Machazir Gerushaso, Chalutzaso 
          and Krovas Chalutzaso, Chachamim teach about the Krovas 
          Gerushaso!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> (There is no reason to change the text of the 
          Mishnah.) R. Akiva holds that Krovas Chalutzaso produces 
          Mamzerim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> He learns from 'Beis Chalutz 
          ha'Na'al' - the Torah calls Chalutzaso 'Beiso' (as if she 
          was his wife).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>CHILDREN BLEMISHED TO 'KEHUNAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> All agree that the child of Machazir 
          Gerushaso is Pagum to (disqualified from) Kehunah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) YIBUM AND CHALITZAH WITH THE TWO WIVES OF ONE'S DECEASED BROTHER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (43b) states that when a man dies childless and leaves behind two wives, his brother does Yibum or Chalitzah with one of the wives and thereby exempts the other wife from her obligation of Yibum. The Gemara asks why the brother is not required to do Chalitzah with the second woman after he does Yibum with the first. The Gemara answers that since he may not do Yibum with the second woman ('Bayis Echad Hu Boneh' -- 'one may build only one house, and not two,' as derived from Devarim 25:9), he also may not do Chalitzah. The principle of 'Kol she'Ein Oleh l'Yibum, Ein Oleh l'Chalitzah' teaches that when Yibum may not be done, Chalitzah also may not be done. 
</p><p>
The Gemara adds that 'in addition, people should not say that half of the brother's house is being built, and half is doing Chalitzah.' The Gemara asks what difference would it make if people say that, and it answers that when people see the Yavam do Yibum with the first woman and Chalitzah with the second, they might think that one is permitted to do the two procedures in any order, and they will permit doing Chalitzah first and then Yibum (which is prohibited because 'Keivan she'Lo Banah, Shuv Lo Yivneh').
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara add this second reason? The first reason explains why the <i>Torah</i> does not require that Chalitzah be done with the second woman. The Derashah of 'Bayis Echad Hu Boneh' and the principle of 'Kol she'Ein Oleh l'Yibum' are mid'Oraisa. Hence, mid'Oraisa the brother does not need to do Chalitzah with the second woman. Why does the Gemara add a second reason which is only mid'Rabanan, a Gezeirah to prevent people from confusing the order and permitting Yibum after Chalitzah? If Chalitzah is not needed mid'Oraisa, there obviously is no need to explain why the Rabanan enacted that it not be done! Moreover, if there indeed is some reason to obligate the brother mid'Oraisa to do Chalitzah with the second woman, how can the Rabanan prohibit Chalitzah and permit a Yevamah to remarry without releasing herself from the obligation of Yibum?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) TOSFOS' text of the Gemara omits the second reason of the Gemara and includes only the reason why Chalitzah is not done mid'Oraisa. The Rishonim, however, cite the Girsa of the <b>RIF</b> and <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> whose text does include the second reason.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> explain the Gemara as follows. Although the Torah gives a reason for why the brother should not do Chalitzah with the second woman, the Rabanan are entitled to enact a decree that he do Chalitzah with her so that people (who are not aware that her Tzarah did Yibum) not mistakenly assume that a Yevamah may remarry without being released from her obligation of Yibum. The Gemara answers that the Rabanan carefully weighed the implications of such an enactment and they reasoned that if the second woman would be required (mid'Rabanan) to do Chalitzah, an even bigger problem might occur -- people might mistakenly assume that the brother may do Chalitzah first and then Yibum. Therefore, they did not enact that Chalitzah be done with the second woman.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that the Gemara does not merely give a reason for why there is no obligation to do Chalitzah with the second woman after Yibum is done with the first. Rather, the Gemara teaches that the brother is <i>forbidden</i> to do Chalitzah with the second woman. When the principle of 'Kol she'Ein Oleh l'Yibum, Ein Oleh l'Chalitzah' dictates that there is no obligation to do Chalitzah with the second woman, it must mean that Chalitzah is also <i>forbidden</i>. It is logical that wherever the Torah does not obligate one to do Chalitzah, it <i>forbids</i> Chalitzah, because the act of Chalitzah involves excessive disgrace to the parties involved. The Gemara then says that even if this consideration is not reason enough to forbid Chalitzah mid'Oraisa, it still should be Asur mid'Rabanan because of the concern that people might permit the brother to do Chalitzah first and then Yibum.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who agrees?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shimon ha'Temani agrees;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even though R. Shimon ha'Temani says that Chayavei 
               Lavin do not produce Mamzerim, a Kal va'Chomer 
               teaches that the child is Pagum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Isur of a widow to a Kohen Gadol is not Shavah 
               b'Chol, yet the child is Pagum. The Isur of Machazir 
               Gerushaso applies to everyone, all the more so the 
               child is Pagum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #1:</font></b> One cannot learn from a widow to a Kohen 
          Gadol, since she herself becomes a Chalalah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #2:</font></b> It says about Machazir Gerushaso '<i>She</i> is 
          an abomination', i.e. but her children are not!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #3 (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</font></b> If one was Machazir 
          Gerushaso, married Chalutzaso or Krovas Chalutzaso, Ein 
          Kidushin Tofsin (Kidushin does not take effect) and she 
          does not need a Get. She is Pesulah and her child is 
          Pasul, and we force him to expel her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, Kidushin takes effect, she needs a 
               Get, she is Kesherah and her child is Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> 'Her child is Kosher', i.e. to Kehunah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (to Objection #3):</font></b> No, he is Kosher to Kahal (to 
          marry Yisraelim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> You cannot say that 'She is Kesherah' means to 
          Kahal! Obviously, Bi'as Isur does not disqualify her to 
          Kahal!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, we must say that she is Kesherah to Kehunah, 
               and also her child is Kosher to Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We need not say so! The Beraisa teaches her 
          status regarding Kehunah, and her child's status 
          regarding Kahal!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</font></b> She is Pesulah and her son 
          is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We cannot say that she is Pesulah to Kahal. Bi'as 
               Isur does not disqualify her from the congregation! 
               Rather, it must be, to Kehunah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We cannot say that her child is Pasul to Kehunah, 
               but he is Kosher to Kahal, for R. Akiva says that 
               the child is a Mamzer! Rather, he is disqualified to 
               Kahal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Conclusion:	The Reisha discuss disqualification 
               to different groups, the same applies to the Seifa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (to Objection #2):</font></b> '<i>She</i> is an abomination' 
          teaches that her Tzarah is not an abomination. Her 
          children are abominations.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We have yet to answer Objection #1 - we cannot learn 
               from a widow married to a Kohen Gadol, since she 
               herself is defiled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction:</font></b> Rather, Rav Yosef learned as follows: All 
          agree that the child of Chayavei Kerisus is Pagum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who agrees?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehoshua agrees. Even though he says that 
          Mamzerim do not come from Chayavei Kerisos, he agrees 
          that the child is Pagum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He learns from a Kal va'Chomer from a widow to a 
               Kohen Gadol. Even though this Isur is not Shavah 
               b'Chol, the child is Pagum. Chayavei Kerisos are 
               Shavah b'Chol, all the more so the child is Pagum!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We cannot learn from a widow, for she 
               herself becomes defiled.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Here also, she becomes a Zonah (and is 
               forbidden to Kehunah).
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE CHILD OF A SLAVE OR 'NOCHRI' THROUGH A 'BAS' 'YISRAEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> All agree that if a slave or 
          Nochri fathered the child of a Bas Yisrael, the child is 
          a Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who admits?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> R. Shimon ha'Temani admits. Even though he 
          says that Mamzerim do not come from Chayavei Lavin, that 
          refers to Chayavei Lavin that can be Mekudeshes to 
          others;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A slave or Nochri cannot be Mekadesh a woman, so 
               they are like Chayavei Kerisus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Beraisa):</font></b> If a slave or Nochri fathered the 
          child of a Bas Yisrael, the child is a Mamzer;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Yehudah says, a Mamzer comes only from 
               Ervah that is Chayavei Kerisus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Rather, Rebbi admits. Rebbi said 
          'Only R. Akiva says this (that if Yibum was done after 
          Chalitzah, no Get is needed), since R. Akiva considers a 
          Chalutzah like Ervah', but Rebbi himself argues;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi admits (to R. Akiva) that the child of a Bas 
               Yisrael from a Nochri or slave is a Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Dimi citing Rabeinu):</font></b> The child of a Bas Yisrael 
          from a Nochri or slave is a Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Acha redeemed captives; one was pregnant from a 
          Nochri.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ami):</font></b> R. Yochanan, R. Elazar and R. Chanina all say 
          that the child is a Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Does a long list of names prove 
          that this is the Halachah?! Rav and Shmuel in Bavel, and 
          R. Yehoshua ben Levi and Bar Kapara in Eretz Yisrael say 
          that he is Kosher!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Some say that in place of 'Bar Kapara', Rav Yosef 
               cited 'the elders of the south'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Halachah is, he is a Mamzer, but this is 
          because Rebbi says so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> Rabeinu (Rebbi) says, the child is a Mamzer. 
          R. Yehoshua ben Levi says, the child is Pagum 
          (blemished).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> To whom is the child Pagum?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It cannot be to Yisraelim, for R. Yehoshua ben Levi 
               said above that the child is Kosher!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, he is Pagum to Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  All the Amora'im who say that the child is Kosher agree 
          that he is blemished to Kehunah, from a Kal va'Chomer:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a widow marries a Kohen Gadol, even though the 
               Isur is not Shavah b'Chol, the child is Pagum (a 
               Chalal). The Isur of a Nochri or slave to a Bas 
               Yisrael is Shavah b'Chol, all the more so the child 
               is Pagum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We cannot learn from there, since the widow 
          herself becomes defiled!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Here also, she becomes defiled!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If a Nochri or slave had Bi'ah with a 
               Kohenes, Leviyah or Bas Yisrael, he disqualified 
               her. 'If a Bas Kohen will be widowed or divorced 
               (from a Yisrael, she may eat Terumah again)' applies 
               only to someone from whom there is widowhood or 
               divorce. Widowhood and divorce do not apply to a 
               Nochri or slave.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye to Rav Yosef):</font></b> Why do you rely on Rav 
          Dimi, and not on Ravin (who says that Rebbi permits)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ravin):</font></b> R. Noson and R. Yehudah ha'Nasi permit the 
               child.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah ha'Nasi is Rebbi!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b></b>  Also Rav permits the child!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> A man:</font></b> What is the status of the child of a 
               Yisraelis from a Nochri or slave?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav:</font></b> He is Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The man asked to marry Rav's daughter; Rav refused.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Simi bar Chiya:</font></b> A camel can dance in a tiny 
               circle (you should agree, to demonstrate that your 
               ruling is correct!).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav:</font></b> If the man was like Yehoshua bin Nun, I would 
               not give him my daughter!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Simi:</font></b> If he was like Yehoshua Bin Nun, he could 
               find other girls to marry. If you don't give this 
               man your daughter, also other will not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> The man would not leave. Rav put his eyes on him, 
               and he died.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b></b>  Rav Masnah and Rav Yehudah also permitted the child.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b></b>  When such a case came to Rav Yehudah, he would counsel 
          the son to go to a place where he is unknown, and get 
          married there. Alternatively, he should marry a girl of 
          similar parentage. (Even though he is permitted, children 
          of Yisraelim were reluctant to marry him.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>CHILDREN OF A HALF-SLAVE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (People of Bei Michsi):</font></b> If a half-freed slave 
          had Bi'ah with a Bas Yisrael, what is the child's status?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> Even if the father was a full slave, the 
          child is Kosher, all the more so if he was a half-slave!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A CHILD BORN FROM A UNION WITH AN 'EVED' OR A 'NOCHRI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains the difference between the status of a child born from a union between a Jewess and an Eved or Nochri, and the status of a child born from a union between two Jews who are forbidden to each other by an Isur Ervah. In both cases, Kidushin does not take effect between the parents, and thus the child in both cases should have the status of a Mamzer. The Gemara explains that in the case of relations with an Isur Ervah, although Kidushin does not take effect between the two individuals who are forbidden to each other, each person <i>is</i> able to marry someone else who is not forbidden to him or her. In contrast, an Eved and Nochri may marry <i>no one</i> -- their Kidushin never takes effect and therefore the child is not a Mamzer.
</p><p>
What is the logic behind this explanation? The fact that the Kidushin of an Eved or Nochri never takes effect should be <i>more</i> of a reason for the child to have the status of a Mamzer.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that the element which renders a child a Mamzer is the severity of the Isur involved with his conception. That severity is expressed by the fact that Kidushin could not take effect upon the union between the mother and father. That is, the Isur is so severe that Kidushin cannot exist in such a union.
</p><p>
In the case of a man and woman who are forbidden to each other because of an Isur Ervah, the fact that both may marry others but may not marry each other shows that the Isur between them is very strong. It is the strength of that Isur which prevents Kidushin from taking effect. In contrast, in the case of an Eved or a Nochri the fact that Kidushin does not take effect with the Jewess with whom he has relations does not show anything about the strength of the Isur; an Eved and Nochri cannot make Kidushin with <i>anyone</i>. The reason why they cannot make Kidushin with anyone is that the Torah did not give them the ability to make Kidushin in the first place. It is unrelated to the prohibition of the union between him and a Jewess. Hence, the child is not a Mamzer.
</p><p>
<b>RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN</b> Hy'd (Kovetz He'oros 37:2) asks that according to the explanation of the Rashba, how does the Gemara apply this logic to legitimize the child of an Eved or Nochri who had relations with a <i>married</i> Jewess (an 'Eshes Ish')? The Isur of 'Eshes Ish' is a strong Isur, as evidenced by the fact that Kidushin with an 'Eshes Ish' does not take effect even with a man who is able to make Kidushin (such as an ordinary Jewish man). Hence, even if she has relations with an Eved or Nochri, the child should be a Mamzer!
</p><p>
Rav Elchanan answers that although Kidushin does not take effect between an 'Eshes Ish' and another man, since her Kidushin would not take effect with an Eved or Nochri <i>even when she is not an 'Eshes Ish'</i> the fact that she happens to be an 'Eshes Ish' does not affect the child.
</p><p>
This is difficult to understand. The Rashba states that the ability of Kidushin to take effect is only a <i>sign</i> of the strength of the Isur, and not a <i>cause</i> for the strength of the Isur. Accordingly, the fact that she can never have Kidushin with an Eved because he is not fit for Kidushin should be inconsequential. As far as the strength of the Isur is concerned, the fact that this 'Eshes Ish' cannot have Kidushin with anyone shows that the Isur is very strong. What difference does it make if Kidushin cannot be effected with an Eved? The child still should be a Mamzer.
</p><p>
Another answer to the original question of Rav Elchanan may be suggested. Although the Isur which forbids an 'Eshes Ish' from marrying any other Jew is very strong, the Isur which forbids her from marrying an Eved or Nochri is different because the act of Bi'ah with an Eved or Nochri is less severe (<b>TOSFOS</b> to Kesuvos 3b). Consequently, an Eved who lives with an 'Eshes Ish' transgresses a less severe Isur, and therefore the fact that she cannot have Kidushin with any other Jew is no proof for the strength of the Isur.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RITVA</b> cite <b>RAV HAI GA'ON</b> whose text of the Gemara differs from ours. The text of his Gemara reads not that an Eved and Nochri cannot have Kidushin, but that in the case of 'an Eved and Nochri, the child's lineage does not follow him (the father),' rather it follows the lineage of the mother and thus the child is not a Mamzer. The father, an Eved or Nochri, does not affect the status of the child at all, even to give him a disqualifying trait, since the lineage of the child is not traced at all to the father (as the Gemara says earlier on 17a). 
</p><p>
They add that although the Girsa of our text is different, our text might mean the same thing. When the Gemara says that the Kidushin of an Eved or Nochri does not take effect at all, it may mean that the father cannot affect the status of the child because the child is not considered related to the father, just as the Jewess with whom he had relations is not considered related to him (since Kidushin cannot take effect).
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> You learn from Rav Yehudah, who 
          rules that the son of a Bas Yisrael from a slave is 
          Kosher. He himself says that if the father was a 
          half-slave, the child has no solution!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Yehudah said so regarding a half-slave that 
          was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael. His slave side has Bi'ah with 
          a married woman (and this causes Mamzerus).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Nehardai say that the stringent opinion 
          disqualifies the child even if the mother was single, and 
          the lenient opinion permits even if she was married!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Both opinions learn from Eshes Av (which is written 
               next to the Isur of Mamzer).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One opinion says, just like Mamzerus results from 
               Eshes Av because Kidushin cannot apply to such a 
               union, the same applies whenever the parents could 
               not have Kidushin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The other opinion says, Mamzerus comes from Eshes Av 
               because the father could Mekadesh other women, but 
               not the mother. A Nochri or slave cannot Mekadesh 
               anyone, so his children are never Mamzerim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, R. Yehudah taught about children of a 
          half-slave from a married woman. The free half has Bi'ah 
          with a married woman (this makes Mamzerus).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravina):</font></b> Rav Gaza said that R. Yosi bar Avin ruled in 
          two cases. He permitted the child of a single girl (from 
          a slave), and forbade the child of a married woman (from 
          a slave).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> No, R. Yosi bar Zvida ruled, and he 
          permitted in both cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> Ameimar permitted both cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, the son of a Nochri or slave from a Bas 
          Yisrael is Kosher, whether or not she is married.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Rava ruled that Mari bar Rachel (whose father was a 
          Nochri) is Kosher, and gave him a position of authority.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Put on yourselves a king' teaches that all 
               appointments of authority must be from your 
               brethren, and not from converts. Nevertheless, since 
               his mother is Jewish, he is considered your brother.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TEVILAH' FOR 'TAHARAH' SUFFICES FOR CONVERSION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya bar Ami's slave immersed a Nochris (to be 
          Metaher her from Tum'as Nidah) because he wanted to take 
          her for a wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> I can show that she and her daughter are 
          Kesheros:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She is Kesherah, for it is clear from Rav Asi 
               (brought immediately below) that Tevilas Nidah 
               suffices for conversion.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Her daughter is Kesherah, for if a Nochri or slave 
               fathered a child from a Bas Yisrael, the child is 
               Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  People were calling a certain man the son of a Nochris.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Asi:</font></b> Didn't his mother immerse after being a 
               Nidah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  People were calling a certain man the son of a Nochri.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yehoshua ben Levi:</font></b> Didn't his father immerse 
               after seminal emissions?! (This suffices for 
               conversion.)
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SLAVE WHO IMMERSED TO BECOME FREE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chama bar Gurya):</font></b> If one bought a slave from a 
          Nochri and the slave immersed l'Shem Ben Chorin (to 
          become a free convert), he succeeded.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  This is because the Nochri did not own the slave himself 
          (just his earnings). The Yisrael cannot acquire more than 
          the Nochri himself owned;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since the slave immersed to become free, this 
               uproots his bondage, like Rava's law:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> The following uproot Shi'abud (a lien, on an 
               object or slave): making it Hekdesh, Shichrur 
               (freeing a slave), and the Isur of Chametz on 
               Pesach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chisda - Beraisa):</font></b> A case occurred in which 
          a woman converted, and her slaves immersed before she 
          did. Chachamim ruled that they are free.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had they immersed after her, they would not be free!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> No. Since they immersed before her, they 
          are free even if they did not specify their intent. Had 
          they immersed after her, they would be free only if they 
          specified that they immerse l'Shem Ben Chorin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Avya):</font></b> This is only when a Yisrael buys from a 
          Nochri. If one buys a Nochri himself, he acquires him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> '...Mehem Tiknu' - you can buy them (to be slaves), 
               but they cannot buy you, nor can they acquire one 
               another.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In what sense can a Nochri not acquire?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He cannot acquire (even rights to 
               receive) earnings.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> An Eved Ivri can be sold '... O l'Eker 
               <i>Mishpachas Ger</i>', i.e. to a Nochri!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, 'Mehem Tiknu' discusses acquiring the 
          person himself, and it says that a Yisrael can acquire a 
          Nochri.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Acha):</font></b> Perhaps he acquires only him through 
          money and immersion (to become a slave), but before this, 
          the Nochri may immerse l'Shem Ben Chorin!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is left difficult.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> One must hold the slave in the water.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Ashi wanted to immerse Minyamin to be his slave. 
               He handed him over to Ravina and Rav Acha, and said 
               that they will be held responsible if he immerses to 
               convert.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They tied a chain around his neck, loosened it and 
               tightened it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  They loosened it, so it should not be a 
                    Chatzitzah (blockage which invalidates the 
                    immersion).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> They tightened it, so he would not be able to 
                    say that he immersed l'Shem Ben Chorin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> When they lifted his head from the water, they put a 
               Keli of mud on his head and told him to take it to 
               his master.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> People of Papa bar Aba's house pay 
          people's taxes and use them as slaves. Do the slaves need 
          a document of freedom when the servitude ends?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rava:</font></b> Had I died before telling you, there would be no 
          one to tell you!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava citing Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The king says that one 
          who does not pay his own tax is a slave to the one that 
          pays for him (therefore, a document is needed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya bar Aba went to Gavla. He saw Benos Yisrael that 
          became pregnant from Nochrim that were circumcised but 
          did not immerse. He saw Jews drinking wine mixed by 
          Nochrim and eating lupines cooked by Nochrim. He did not 
          say anything; he came to R. Yochanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan:</font></b> Go announce that their children are 
          Mamzerim, their wine is Yayin Nesech (wine offered to 
          idolatry, which is forbidden), and their lupines are 
          Bishul Akum (food cooked by Nochrim, which is forbidden), 
          since they are not Bnei Torah (they are prone to 
          extrapolate and say that other things are similarly 
          permitted).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan said that their children are Mamzerim. 
               This is like his opinion that one is not a convert 
               until he is circumcised and immerses, so the fathers 
               were still Nochrim, and that the child of a Nochri 
               or slave from a Bas Yisrael is a Mamzer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Their wine is Yayin Nesech. We tell a Nazir to go 
               far from a vineyard (i.e. distance yourself from 
               possible transgression. Here also we distance them 
               from Aveirah; the Nochrim mixed the wine without 
               touching it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> Their lupines are forbidden because they are 
          not Bnei Torah, but Bnei Torah are permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav Shmuel bar R. Yitzchak said that Bishul 
          Akum does not apply to anything (normally) eaten raw. 
          Lupines are not eaten raw!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan (Tosfos - also) holds like the other 
          version of Rav Shmuel's teaching:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Shmuel bar R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Whatever does not come 
               on the table of kings to be eaten with bread is 
               permitted even if it was cooked by Nochrim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b></b>  Therefore, Bnei Torah are permitted.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ESSENTIAL STEPS OF CONVERSION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If a convert was circumcised but 
          did not immerse he is a (valid) convert, since our 
          forefathers (who left Mitzrayim) converted this way;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua says, if he immersed but was not circumcised 
          he is a convert, since the women (of that generation) 
          converted this way.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, one is not enough by itself. He is not a 
          convert until he circumcises and immerses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why doesn't R. Yehoshua learn from the men, and 
          why doesn't R. Eliezer learn from the women?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps we do not learn what is possible 
               (Milah of men) from what is impossible (Milah of 
               women).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> R. Eliezer does learn thusly!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> For all generations, 
                    Korban Pesach may not be brought from Ma'aser 
                    money. We learn this from the Pesach brought in 
                    Mitzrayim, which was not brought from Ma'aser.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Akiva:</font></b> Do we learn what is possible from 
                    what is impossible? (Ma'aser did not apply 
                    yet!)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>R. Eliezer:</font></b> Yes! Even though it was impossible, 
                    we learn from it.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SOURCE FOR A CONVERT'S MILAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that the source for the obligation of Milah for a convert is the Milah the Jewish people performed when they left Mitzrayim.
</p><p>
Where, though, does the Torah mention that the Jewish people performed Milah when they left Mitzrayim in order to become Gerim? The only mention of Milah at the time of the Exodus is the Milah the Jewish people performed in order to be permitted to eat the Korban Pesach (Kerisus 9a), which was a specific commandment unrelated to becoming Jewish. (<b>RAMBAN</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> explain that the Milah the Jewish people performed in Mitzrayim was not merely to permit them to eat the Korban Pesach. Moshe Rabeinu told them to perform Milah in order to accept the Mitzvos upon themselves and to be 'Nichnas Tachas Kanfei ha'Shechinah' -- to become the nation of Hash-m. That is what the Mechilta (Shemos 12:6) means when it says that at the time of the Exodus the Jews lacked the merit of Mitzvos, and therefore Hash-m gave them two Mitzvos to perform -- Milah and the Korban Pesach (Mechilta Shemos 12:6). Hash-m gave these Mitzvos to the Jewish people in order to make them His chosen nation.
</p><p>
However, not every man in Mitzrayim needed to perform Milah in order to eat the Korban Pesach. Although most of the people had forsaken the Mitzvah of Milah until the night of the Exodus, the tribe of Levi always observed the Mitzvah of Milah (Devarim 33:9) as the <b>RAMBAM</b> explains (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 13:2). Accordingly, the men of the tribe of Levi did not need to perform Milah when they left Mitzrayim. When did they perform a Milah for the sake of conversion? The Milah they performed earlier was the fulfillment of the ordinary Mitzvah of Milah that was given to Avraham Avinu. It was not done for the sake of becoming Jewish.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> suggest that the men of Levi performed 'Hatafas Dam Bris' -- they let some blood from the place of their Milah for the purpose of conversion. The Gemara understands that every man who left Mitzrayim performed some form of Milah, either actual circumcision or 'Hatafas Dam Bris.'
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> suggests further that perhaps the men of Levi did not need Milah again because their original Milah was done to fulfill the Mitzvah of Hash-m. (The Ramban later compares the men of Levi to the women who converted with Tevilah alone.)
</p><p>
The Ramban apparently maintains that a man who already performed the Mitzvah of Milah is comparable to a man who physically is unable to perform Milah. A man who was born deformed and cannot perform Milah still can become a Ger without Milah (as Tosfos says on 46b, DH d'Rebbi Yosi). Similarly, if a man already performed the Mitzvah of Milah, it is not possible for him to perform Milah again for the sake of Gerus. The Milah of Gerus is not a new Mitzvah per se; rather, the Mitzvah is to perform an act of Milah <i>for the sake of Gerus</i>. If he already performed the Mitzvah of Milah, he cannot do it again for the sake of Gerus. Since it is impossible for him to perform Milah for the sake of Gerus, the lack of Milah for Gerus does not prevent him from becoming a Ger.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Kerisus (9a, DH d'Kesiv) offers a similar answer but with a different logic. Tosfos suggests that even those who performed Milah because of the Mitzvah given to Avraham did so for the sake of Gerus and to accept upon themselves the yoke of Mitzvos. Avraham's Mitzvah was not just to perform Milah, but to do so in order to become a Jew.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (46b, DH d'Rebbi Yosi, and Shabbos 135a, DH Lo Nechleku) quotes <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> who rules that even today a circumcised Nochri who comes to convert does not need 'Hatafas Dam Bris' in order to become a Ger. He maintains that although the Nochri's Milah was a medical procedure devoid of any spiritual relevance, he is exempt from the requirement of Milah since he physically cannot do Milah again for the sake of Gerus. While other Rishonim maintain that for such a Nochri 'Hatafas Dam Bris' must be done in place of Milah, Rabeinu Chananel disagrees. He maintains that 'Hatafas Dam Bris' is done only for a child born with a Milah; since he was born that way, there is a different form of Milah for him -- 'Hatafas Dam Bris.' For one who was born normal, however, the only valid form of Milah is the removal of the Orlah, and one who had his Orlah removed already cannot have another Milah. (See Insights to Shabbos 135:2.) This approach explains why the tribe of Levi did not need a new Milah for Gerus.
</p><p>
(Although this seems to be the opinion of Rabeinu Chananel according to the way Tosfos quotes his words, Rabeinu Chananel may intend to say something else entirely. Rabeinu Chananel writes that because there is no 'Hatafas Dam Bris' for a convert, a Nochri who is already circumcised <i>cannot become a convert</i> at all! (See Rabeinu Chananel to Shabbos 135b, where a few words seem to be missing in the version printed in the Vilna Shas, and see the words of Rabeinu Chananel as cited by the <b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>TUR</b> YD 268, and other Rishonim.) Rabeinu Chananel enigmatically adds that although his conversion does not entitle him to acceptance as a Jew, children born to him afterwards are Jews! None of the Rishonim concur with Rabeinu Chananel in this respect.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction:</font></b> Rather, all agree that immersion without 
          circumcision is a proper conversion. They argue about 
          circumcision without immersion;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer learns from the men that this suffices. R. 
          Yehoshua disagrees, because the men also immersed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Yehoshua's source?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He learns from '...v'Kidashtam ha'Yom 
               u'Machar v'Chibsu Simlosam'. One must immerse 
               himself even when he need not wash (immerse) his 
               clothes (e.g. a Ba'al Keri), all the more so when he 
               must wash his clothes!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps they washed their clothes just 
               for cleanliness!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'Moshe took the blood and threw it on the 
          people.' We have a tradition that every Haza'ah 
          (sprinkling) requires immersion first.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Yehoshua's source that the mothers 
          immersed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is logical. If not, what did they do to enter 
          under Kanfei ha'Shechinah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> One is not a convert until he 
          circumcises and immerses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious. The Halachah follows the 
          majority (Chachamim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Elsewhere, Chachamim's opinion is attributed to 
          an individual, R. Yosi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If a man says that he 
               circumcised but did not immerse, we immerse him. We 
               are not concerned for whether or not his 
               circumcision was for the sake of conversion;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, we do not immerse him (without Hatafas 
               Dam Bris, lest his Milah was not l'Shem Geirus).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Therefore, R. Yehudah permits immersing a convert on 
               Shabbos, and R. Yosi forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yehudah holds that one act is enough. 
          Obviously, he is circumcised he may immerse Shabbos 
          (since Tevilah is unnecessary, it is not Tikun (fixing 
          him).) What do we learn from 'therefore'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that immersion is primary, 
          so it is Tikun. The Seifa teaches that circumcision helps 
          by itself, therefore he may immerse.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why must it teach that R. Yosi forbids 
          immersing a convert on Shabbos? Since he requires both, 
          obviously Tevilah on Shabbos is Tikun and it is 
          forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that he holds that 
          circumcision is primary, and he forbids Tevilas Ger on 
          Shabbos only if circumcision was not done in front of us, 
          but not if we saw it. The Seifa teaches, he requires both 
          and always forbids Tevilah on Shabbos..
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CONDITIONS OF CONVERSION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> A case occurred in which a convert circumcised 
          but did not immerse. R. Chiya bar Rebbi, R. Oshaya b'Ribi 
          and R. Oshaya bar R. Chiya told him 'wait, and we will 
          immerse you tomorrow.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  We learn three laws from this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Conversion requires three judges;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One is not a convert until he circumcises and 
               immerses;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We do not immerse converts at night.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why don't we also learn that expert judges are 
          required?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps it just happened that expert judges were 
          there.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> Three judges are needed for 
          conversion, since it is called 'Mishpat' (judgment; 
          'U'Mishpat Echad Yihyeh Lachem vela'Ger' - Bamidbar 
          15:16).
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN DO WE ACCEPT CONVERTS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yehudah) Suggestion:</font></b> If a man claims to be 
          a convert, perhaps we accept him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> ' Itcha (with you)' - we accept him only if he 
          is Muchzak (established) to you.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If he brings witnesses with him, he is believed - 'When 
          he with dwell'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'b'Artzechem' teaches that this 
          applies only in Eretz Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> 'Itcha' - whenever you are.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does it say 'b'Artzechem'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> In Eretz Yisrael, the convert must bring proof. 
          In Chutz la'Aretz, he does not need proof;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, in every place he must bring proof.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why must a verse teach that he is believed when 
          he comes with witnesses?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The witnesses say 'we heard that he 
          converted in Ploni's Beis Din';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that we do not believe them. 
               The verse teaches that we believe them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How can R. Yehudah expound 'Itcha' to include 
          Chutz la'Aretz? He already used it to teach that he must 
          be established to you!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One of the teachings is learned from 'Imach' 
          (Rashi - Vayikra 25:35. Gra - the text should say 
          'Itchem' (Vayikra 19:34), the verse after Itcha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Chachamim require proof in Eretz Yisrael and 
          outside. What do they learn from 'b'Artzechem'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It teaches that we accept converts even in Eretz 
          Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that we do not accept them 
               because they are insincere, and convert only due to 
               the greatness of Eretz Yisrael;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Even now that Eretz Yisrael lost its former 
               greatness, we might have thought that they convert 
               only to receive agricultural gifts to the poor;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The verse teaches that we accept their conversion.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> The Halachah is, both in Eretz 
          Yisrael and Chutz la'Aretz, he must bring a proof.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Obviously the Halachah follows the majority 
          (Chachamim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that we follow R. Yehudah 
          because his reasoning is better, i.e. the verse supports 
          him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Therefore R. Chiya needed to teach that the Halachah 
               follows Chachamim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO IS BELIEVED ABOUT LINEAGE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> 'U'Shfatetem... u'Vein Gero' 
          teaches that a Ger's conversion is valid only if was in 
          Beis Din, but not if he converted by himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A man told R. Yehudah that he converted by himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yehudah:</font></b> Do you have witnesses?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The man:</font></b> No.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yehudah:</font></b> Do you have children?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The man:</font></b> Yes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yehudah:</font></b> You are believed to disqualify yourself, but 
          not to disqualify your children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yehudah holds that one is believed about his 
          children!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> 'Yakir' - he will make 
               others know. This shows that a man is believed to 
               say who is his firstborn.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Similarly, a Kohen is believed to say that his son 
               (is a Chalal because he) was born to a divorcee or a 
               Chalutzah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, he is not believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> R. Yehudah told him 
          'by your own admission you are a Nochri, so your 
          testimony is invalid.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Ravina):</font></b> R. Yehudah asked if he had children 
          and grandchildren. The man said that he has both;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah said that he is believed to disqualify 
               his children, but not his grandchildren.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> A man is believed about 
          his young son, but not about his old son.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> This does not refer to age. 
               Rather, a son is called 'old' only if he has 
               children. Otherwise, he is called 'young'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  The Halachah follows Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa supports Ravina!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa learns from 'Yakir' when a Yisrael is 
          believed, but a Nochri is not believed at all.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>DISCOURAGING CONVERSION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> If one comes to convert nowadays, we ask, 
          'Why do you want to convert? Don't you know that Yisrael 
          are depressed, pushed around, humbled and afflicted?!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he says, 'I know. If only I was worthy to share their 
          affliction!', we accept him immediately, inform him of 
          some light Mitzvos, some severe Mitzvos, the sin of (not 
          giving) agricultural gifts to the poor, and the 
          punishment of Mitzvos;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  We tell him 'before converting, Chelev you did not get 
          Kares for eating Chelev or stoned for Chilul Shabbos. 
          Now, you are Chayav Kares for eating Chelev and stoned 
          for Chilul Shabbos.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Just like we inform him of the punishment of Mitzvos, we 
          also tell him of their reward. The world to come is only 
          for Tzadikim; Yisrael at this time cannot receive too 
          much good, nor too much punishments;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) TELLING A CONVERT ABOUT IDOLATRY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara derives the things that Beis Din must tell a Nochri who wants to convert from the things that Naomi told Ruth when she wanted to convert. Naomi told Ruth about the Mitzvah of Techum Shabbos, and that there are 613 Mitzvos which a Jew must observe, and that once a person becomes a Jew she becomes prohibited from worshipping idols.
</p><p>
Why is a prospective Ger told that if he becomes Jewish, he will no longer be permitted to worship idols? Idolatry is forbidden to everyone, whether or not he is Jewish! (<b>MAHARSHA</b>, 47a)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that Naomi did not actually tell Ruth that she will become forbidden from worshipping idols if she converts. Rather, Naomi told her that once she becomes Jewish she will be prohibited from leaving Eretz Yisrael, because one who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael is 'as if he has no G-d' (Kesuvos 110b). 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> answers that Naomi's words to Ruth referred to forms of idol-worship that are permitted only to a Nochri and not to a Jew, such as 'Shituf' (worshipping another god along with Hash-m) according to some Rishonim (see Tosfos to Sanhedrin 63b, DH Asur l'Adam).
</p><p>
Other Acharonim add that a Jew may not derive benefit from an object worshipped as Avodah Zarah while a Nochri may derive benefit from it (see <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b>). The <b>TUREI EVEN</b> (Chagigah 11b) rules that although a Jew is forbidden (with an Isur Lav) from kissing an object of Avodah Zarah, a Nochri is forbidden only from serving it in one of the four main forms of idol-worship (slaughtering or burning an offering to it, pouring libations before it, or prostrating oneself to it) or by serving it in the way it normally is served. The <b>RIF</b> in the Ein Yakov adds that a Jew is prohibited even from owning an object of Avodah Zarah and keeping it in his home even when he has no intent to worship it, while a Nochri is permitted to keep such an object in his home.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RIF</b> in the Ein Yakov asks another question. Naomi had told Ruth already that a Jew must observe 613 Mitzvos. Since the prohibition against Avodah Zarah is one of those Mitzvos, why did she need to mention Avodah Zarah separately?
</p><p>
The <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b> and <b>IYUN YAKOV</b> suggest that Naomi intended to warn Ruth that the object of Avodah Zarah of a Jew remains forbidden forever and cannot be annulled. In contrast, the Avodah Zarah of a Nochri becomes permitted once he shows that he no longer worships it. Naomi did not repeat to Ruth that Avodah Zarah is forbidden, but that the object of Avodah Zarah of a Jew is more severe than that of a Nochri.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE ORDER OF PROCEDURES FOR CONVERSION</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara states that a Ger must perform Milah immediately upon his acceptance of the Mitzvos, before he immerses in a Mikvah, because 'we do not delay the performance of a Mitzvah.' After he recovers from the Milah, he performs Tevilah.
</p><p>
If it is important to expedite the conversion process, the Ger should immerse <i>first</i> and then perform Milah immediately afterward, thereby becoming a Ger right away. Why should he perform Milah first, wait until he recuperates, and then immerse?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> writes that the Ger must perform Milah first because if it is left for the end of the conversion process, he might back out when he considers the pain involved, and he will have wasted Beis Din's time and efforts. Nevertheless, if a Ger immerses first and then performs Milah, b'Di'eved his conversion is valid.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> imply that the order <i>does</i> make a difference. If Milah is not done first, the conversion is invalid. The Rosh records the wording of the Gemara in Kerisus (9a) that 'our fathers entered the covenant of Hash-m with Milah, Tevilah, and Haza'ah,' which places Milah first and implies that this is the appropriate order. The source for this order apparently is the order in which the Jewish people performed their Gerus process.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> (see also <b>RITVA</b> and Insights to Yevamos 71:1) explains that Milah must be done first because the removal of the Orlah represents the removal of the Tum'ah of Nochrim (see Mishnah, Nedarim 31b). The Tevilah afterwards is done in order to acquire the Kedushah of Yisrael. If the Ger would do Tevilah while the Orlah is still in place, he would be like a person who immerses in a Mikvah in order to become Tahor while he holds a Sheretz in his hand. The Ritva adds that because of this reason, the Gerus is invalid if the order is reversed. (The Rashba, however, remains in doubt about whether the Gerus would be invalid.)
</p><p>
A practical difference between these approaches may be whether a Nochri who performs Milah without Tevilah is considered a partial Jew or remains a full-fledged Nochri. Does Milah start the process of Gerus, or are all of the components of Gerus necessary in order for any degree of Gerus to be achieved?
</p><p>
The <b>RADBAZ</b> (3:917) writes that since Milah removes the Tum'ah of Nochrim from the Ger, he is considered a Jew in certain respects even though he did not yet immerse in a Mikvah. (For example, other Jews must provide him with financial assistance if he is poor. Also, if he touches wine it does not become forbidden.) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> (in <b>TESHUVOS BINYAN TZION</b> YD 91) writes that a Ger who does Milah without Tevilah should observe Shabbos; he is no longer considered a Nochri who is prohibited from observing Shabbos. This view perhaps follows only the opinion that Milah removes the Ger from the category of Nochri, and thus the process of Gerus has already begun. According to the other opinion, Milah alone is meaningless because Gerus does not even begin until both Milah and Tevilah have been performed. Without both procedures, he remains a complete Nochri.
</p><p>
In fact, this difference in understanding the role of Milah in Gerus is evident in the Rashba's words elsewhere. The Gemara (end of 46b) compares the Tevilah of Gerus to 'Mishpat,' the verdict of a court. Tosfos (46b, DH Ein) writes that the Tevilah of Gerus is like 'Techilas Din,' when a court convenes to discuss a case, even though the Ger has already performed Milah. The Rashba, however, writes that the Tevilah is comparable to the <i>final</i> decision of the court and not to the <i>start</i> of the case, since Milah has already been performed. The Rashba is consistent with his opinion that Milah accomplishes the removal of the status of Nochri even before Tevilah has been performed.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE SOURCE FOR A SLAVE'S OBLIGATION IN MITZVOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara states that when an Eved Kena'ani is freed, he does not need Kabalas Mitzvos (acceptance of the Mitzvos) in order to complete his Gerus. <b>RASHI</b> explains that since he immersed 'l'Shem Avdus' (with intention to become an Eved) when he first entered servitude, 'he was already Shayach to (had some connection to) Mitzvos.' Which Mitzvos applied to him as an Eved? Rashi writes that as an Eved he is obligated to observe the Mitzvah of 'Lema'an Yanu'ach Avdecha' (Devarim 5:14), which requires that he rest from Melachah on Shabbos. In addition, he is obligated to observe the same Mitzvos a Jewish woman is obligated to observe, as derived from the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah Lah.' Since the Eved already became obligated to observe certain Mitzvos at the time he became an Eved, he is not obligated to undergo a new Kabalas Mitzvos when he immerses upon his emancipation.
</p><p>
Rashi mentions two sources for the obligation of an Eved to observe Shabbos, the verse 'Lema'an Yanu'ach' and the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah Lah.' Since the Gezeirah Shavah obligates an Eved to observe the Mitzvos which a woman must observe, why does Rashi write that the Eved must observe Shabbos because of the verse 'Lema'an Yanu'ach Avdecha'? (<b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>)
</p><p>
Moreover, the verse 'Lema'an Yanu'ach Avdecha' does not seem to be an appropriate source that an Eved is obligated to observe Shabbos. That verse is directed specifically to a Jewish master; it commands him not to make his Eved work on Shabbos. It does not command the Eved himself to refrain from work on Shabbos (as the Gemara mentions later on 48b; see also Rashi there, DH Bein ha'Shemashos).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi may be bothered by a difficulty in the Gemara. The Gemara says that an Eved does not need Kabalas Mitzvos when he is released because he already performed Kabalas Mitzvos when he became an Eved. However, the Gemara itself says that a Jewish master can employ an Eved Kena'ani against his will. If an Eved becomes enslaved against his will, certainly he does not accept upon himself the Mitzvos when he becomes an Eved. Why, then, does the Gemara say that he does not need Kabalas Mitzvos when he is released?
</p><p>
The answer to this question may be inferred from the Gemara later (48a). The Gemara there records a Machlokes Tana'im whether an emancipated Eved is exempt from performing a formal act of Kabalas Mitzvos only when he had served as an Eved for a long time, or even when he is freed immediately after he became an Eved. Rashi (DH b'Yefas To'ar) explains that an Eved who served for a long time does not need Kabalas Mitzvos at the time of his release, because during his enslavement he <i>practiced</i> the Mitzvos in which an Eved is obligated; through observing those Mitzvos, he accepted the Mitzvos upon himself.
</p><p>
Apparently, even the opinion that an Eved does <i>not</i> need Kabalas Mitzvos when he is released immediately after he becomes an Eved (which is the opinion which the Gemara here discusses) follow the same logic, even though the Eved has not had a chance to observe the Mitzvos. By virtue of becoming an Eved (whether voluntarily or not) he has become resigned to observing the Mitzvos <i>in the future</i>, and thus becoming an Eved is considered a proper acceptance of the Mitzvos. This is the logic for the assumption that the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah Lah' makes his Kabalas Mitzvos unnecessary.
</p><p>
Rashi may have a doubt whether this logic is correct. Perhaps it is incorrect to assume that an Eved who immersed in a Mikvah against his will becomes resigned to observing the Mitzvos. Rather, just as the master immerses the Eved against his will, so, too, he 'accepts the Mitzvos' on behalf of the Eved against the Eved's will. However, it obviously is not possible for one person to accept upon someone else the yoke of the Mitzvos. Rather, the master accepts upon himself that <i>he</i>, the master, will observe the Mitzvos which apply to him because of the Eved, such as the Mitzvah of 'Lema'an Yanu'ach,' refraining from having the servant work on Shabbos. His acceptance takes the place of the Eved's acceptance. For this reason, Rashi mentions that the obligation of 'Lema'an Yanu'ach' makes an Eved 'Shayach to Mitzvos.'
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  We do not frighten him too much, nor are we so exacting 
          with him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If he still wants to convert, we circumcise him 
          immediately. If strands remain which invalidate the 
          Milah, we circumcise him again.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  When he heals, we immerse him immediately. Two Chachamim 
          stand over him and inform him of some light and severe 
          Mitzvos. After immersing, he is a full Yisrael;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  For a female convert, women see that she enters the water 
          until her neck. Two Chachamim stand over her and inform 
          her of some light and severe Mitzvos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  The law for a freed slave is the same as for a convert. 
          Wherever a Nidah may immerse, a convert or freed slave 
          may immerse. Any Chatzitzah (interruption) that 
          invalidates Tevilah invalidates it for a convert, freed 
          slave or Nidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do we mention the difficulties of Yisrael 
          and inform him of some of the Mitzvos?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps this will deter him from converting (if 
          he is insincere);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chelbo):</font></b> Converts are problematic for Yisrael as 
               Sapachas (a type of Tzara'as) - 'V'Nilvah ha'Ger 
               Aleihem v'NiSPeCHu Al Beis Yakov'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We inform him of the sin of agricultural gifts 
          to the poor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> This is because a Ben No'ach 
               (Nochri) is killed for stealing less than a Perutah, 
               and the theft cannot be corrected by returning the 
               object. (We want him to know that the poor are 
               entitled to these gifts).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We do not frighten him too much, nor are we so 
          exacting with him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> We learn from '(Naomi) saw that (Rus) 
          insisted on going with her, and ceased speaking with 
          her.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Naomi:</font></b> On Shabbos we may not leave the Techum (a Mil 
               around the city).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rus:</font></b> 'Where you go, I will go.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Naomi:</font></b> We may not be secluded with men.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rus:</font></b> 'Where you spend the night, I will lodge.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Naomi:</font></b> We are commanded to keep 613 Mitzvos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rus:</font></b> 'Your nation is my nation.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Naomi:</font></b> Idolatry is forbidden to us.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rus:</font></b> 'Your G-d is my G-d.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Naomi:</font></b> Four death penalties are administered by Beis 
               Din.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rus:</font></b> 'Like you die, I will die.'
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Naomi:</font></b> There are two graveyards for those executed 
               by Beis Din (for those who received lighter and 
               harsher deaths).
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rus:</font></b> 'And there I will be buried.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Immediately - 'She saw that she was 
                    insistent...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If he accepts to convert, we circumcise him 
          immediately.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is because we do not delay a Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If strands remain which invalidate the 
          circumcision, we circumcise him again.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Strands of flesh which covers the majority of 
          the crown invalidate circumcision;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If these remained on a Kohen, he may not eat 
               Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> Flesh which covers most of the height 
          of the crown (invalidate the circumcision).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> When he heals, we immerse him immediately.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We do not immerse him earlier because water 
               aggravates the wound.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'BEIS' 'DIN' FOR CONVERSION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Two Chachamim stand over him...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yochanan taught that conversion requires 
          three!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, R. Yochanan said that the correct text of 
          the Beraisa says three Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> After immersing, he is a full Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The ramifications of this are that if he retracts 
               his conversion then is Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael, he is 
               considered a heretic Yisrael, and his Kidushin takes 
               effect.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> The law of a freed slave is like the law of 
          a convert.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We are thinking that they are the same regarding 
               accepting the yoke of Mitzvos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> This refers to a convert, but 
          a freed slave need not accept the Mitzvos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Beraisa #1 is like Chachamim; 
          Beraisa #2 is R. Shimon ben Elazar:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> '(If one sees a Yefas To'ar (a beautiful 
               Nochris) in war and desires her,) she will cry over 
               her father and mother (for a month)' - this is if 
               she did not accept to convert; but if she accepted, 
               he immerses her and she is permitted to him 
               immediately;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says, even if she did not 
               accept, he may immerse her to become a slave, and 
               immerse her a second time to free (convert) her.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN ONE BE CONVERTED AGAINST HIS WILL?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar learns from 'Kol Eved Ish 
          (any slave of a man... you will circumcise him)'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Surely this applies also to the slave of a 
               woman!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, you may circumcise Eved Ish (a male 
               slave) against his will, but not Ben Ish (a Nochri) 
               against his will.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> Chachamim say that just like you cannot circumcise 
          a Nochri against his will, you cannot circumcise a slave 
          against his will.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do they learn from 'Kol Eved Ish'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They learn Shmuel's law:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> If one made his slave Hefker (ownerless), 
               the slave goes free, and does not need a Get 
               Shichrur (document of freedom).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  'Kol Eved Ish' - one is a slave only if he has 
                    a master.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> Chachamim said only their law 
          regarding a Yefas To'ar, since she is not yet commanded 
          in Mitzvos. A slave is already commanded in Mitzvos, so 
          they would agree that one may circumcise him against his 
          will!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> The law of a convert is like the law of a 
               slave bought from a Nochri: he must accept the 
               Mitzvos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> A slave bought from a Yisrael need not 
               accept the Mitzvos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the Beraisa is like R. Shimon 
               ben Elazar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> He says that even a slave bought from a 
               Nochri need not accept the Mitzvos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Rather, it is Chachamim. This shows that they say 
               that a slave bought from a Nochri must accept, but 
               not a slave bought from a Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa (47b) equated a convert to a freed 
          slave (he need not accept)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 4:f, 47b):</font></b> No, they are 
          the same regarding Tevilah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN 'ESHES' 'YEFAS' 'TO'AR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> 'She will shave her head and do 
          her nails' - she cuts her nails;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, she lets them grow long.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Torah commands about her head and nails. R. 
               Eliezer says, just like she removes (her hair) from 
               her head, she removes her nails;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, just like she does something to her 
               head to make herself repulsive, also regarding her 
               nails.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for R. Eliezer):</font></b> 'Mefivoshes... did not do his 
          legs nor his mustache' - 'doing' refers to removing (the 
          hair)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> 'She will cry over her father and 
          mother' - this is literally true;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE OBLIGATION OF A 'GER TOSHAV' TO OBSERVE SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa states that an Eved and a Ger are obligated to refrain from Melachah on Shabbos. The Gemara explains that the 'Ger' to which the Beraisa refers is a 'Ger Toshav,' a Nochri who lives in Eretz Yisrael who has accepted upon himself the Seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach.
</p><p>
Why does the Beraisa say that a Ger Toshav is obligated to observe Shabbos? A Ger Toshav is a Nochri, not a Jew, and the Gemara in Sanhedrin (58b) clearly states that a Nochri who refrains from Melachah on Shabbos is Chayav Misah. (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Zeh)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that a Nochri who accepts upon himself to observe the Seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach and not to worship Avodah Zarah is required to observe Shabbos, because desecration of Shabbos is compared to Avodah Zarah (Eruvin 69b). The Acharonim explain that according to Rashi, the Gemara in Sanhedrin refers only to a Nochri who worships Avodah Zarah. Such a Nochri indeed is Chayav Misah if he refrains from Melachah on Shabbos. However, once he accepts upon himself not to worship Avodah Zarah he must observe Shabbos. (<b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Zeh) explains that a Ger Toshav has no obligation to observe Shabbos. Rather, the Beraisa means that a Ger Toshav is similar to an Eved in that a Jew is not permitted to have his Eved, or a Ger Toshav, do Melachah for him on Shabbos. (Rashi himself says this with regard to an Eved, in DH Bein ha'Shemashos.)
</p><p>
Why does Rashi not give the explanation that Tosfos gives? Apparently, Rashi maintains that a Ger Toshav is normally not subject to the will of another person, and thus the verse cannot mean that a Jew is not allowed to tell him to do Melachah; the Ger Toshav has no imperative to listen to what the Jew tells him. If he decides to do the Melachah on his own, the Jew may benefit from it (mid'Oraisa) since there is no Isur d'Oraisa that prohibits a Nochri from doing Melachah for a Jew. Accordingly, the Torah does not mean that the Jew is forbidden to ask the Ger Toshav to do Melachah, but rather the Torah commands the Ger Toshav himself to refrain from Melachah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> explains that the Ger Toshav to which the Beraisa refers is actually a Ger Tzedek who is in the process of converting. If Shabbos arrives before he completes his conversion (similar to Rebbi Akiva's case of an Eved, as discussed earlier), he must observe that Shabbos. Since he has intention to convert, he is not considered a Nochri anymore with regard to the prohibition against observing Shabbos, and thus he must refrain from Melachah on Shabbos. (See Insights to Kerisus 9:1.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, this refers to idolatry - 'they say to (an 
          idol of) wood 'you are my father.''
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  'A month of days' - this is 30 days;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Elazar says, it is 90 days. 'Month' is 30 
          days, 'days' are 30, 'after this' is another 30.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> We should say that 'month' is 30, 
          'days' are 30, 'after this' is another 60 (corresponding 
          to what was mentioned above)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  This is left difficult.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SLAVE WHO REFUSES TO BE CIRCUMCISED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yishmael):</font></b> One may keep slaves who refuse 
          to be circumcised;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, we may not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yishmael:</font></b> But it says, 'The son of your slave 
               will rest!' (This will be explained.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Akiva:</font></b> That refers to one who bought a slave Bein 
               ha'Shemashos (when Shabbos was entering) and did not 
               have time to circumcise him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> All agree that the verse discusses an Arel 
          (uncircumcised) slave. How do they know this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> 'The son of your slave will rest' 
          refers to an Arel slave.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it refers to a circumcised 
               slave!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'In order that your male and female slave 
               will rest like yourself' teaches about circumcised 
               slaves. We must say that the other verse discusses 
               an Arel slave.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  'And the Ger' refers to a Ger Toshav (a Nochri that keeps 
          his seven Mitzvos; he may live among us in Eretz 
          Yisrael).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it refers to a convert!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'The Ger in your gates' refers to a 
               convert, so the other verse must refer to a Ger 
               Toshav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> If one bought a slave from a 
          Nochri and the slave refuses to be circumcised, one may 
          keep him for 12 months. If he still refuses, he must be 
          sold to a Nochri.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rabanan:</font></b> This is unlike R. Akiva, who forbids keeping 
          him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Papa:</font></b> It may be even like R. Akiva. R. Akiva forbids 
          keeping a slave who never agreed to be circumcised. If he 
          agreed then retracted, R. Akiva could agree that we wait 
          12 months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Zvid):</font></b> If so, why did R. Akiva say that the 
          verse discusses a slave bought Bein ha'Shemashos? He 
          should have said that it discusses a slave who initially 
          agreed to be circumcised!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He gave one of two possible answers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravin):</font></b> One may keep an Arel slave only if he bought him 
          intending not to circumcise him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rabanan:</font></b> This is unlike R. Akiva, who forbids keeping 
          him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Papa:</font></b> It may be even like R. Akiva. R. Akiva forbids 
          when there was no stipulation not to circumcise him. If 
          he stipulated, it is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Zvid):</font></b> If so, why did R. Akiva said that 
          the verse discusses a slave bought Bein ha'Shemashos? He 
          should have said that it discusses a slave bought without 
          intent to circumcise him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question:</font></b> How will you explain why he didn't 
               say that it discusses a slave who agreed to convert 
               and retracted?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer to both questions:</font></b> You must also say that R. Akiva 
          gave one of two or three possible answers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chanina bar Papi, R. Ami, and R. Yitzchak Nafcha):</font></b> 
          There was a city in Eretz Yisrael whose slaves did not 
          want to be circumcised. They kept them for 12 months, 
          then sold them to Nochrim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  This is like the following Tana:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one bought a slave from a Nochri and 
               he did not agree to be circumcised, one keeps him 
               for 12 months. If he is still Arel, he is sold to a 
               Nochri;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says, in Eretz Yisrael we do 
               not let him stay so long lest he spoil Taharos;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> In a city on the border he may not be kept even a 
               short time, lest he hear something and tell his 
               Nochri friend.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY CONVERTS SUFFER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Chananyah):</font></b> Nowadays converts suffer 
          because they did not keep the Mitzvos of Bnei No'ach 
          before converting;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, a convert is like a newborn (he is not 
          punished for what he did before)! Rather, converts suffer 
          because they are not meticulous in the Mitzvos as Yisrael 
          are;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Aba Chanan says, it is because they serve out of fear, 
          not out of love;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Others say, it is because they delayed coming under 
          Kanfei ha'Shechinah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Avahu):</font></b> Others learn from 'Hash-m will pay your 
          actions, and your wages will be full from Hash-m (because 
          you (Rus) did not delay to convert)'.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT MAKES A 'MAMZER'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Question: What (Isur between the parents) 
          causes the child to be a Mamzer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Akiva):</font></b> It is when they are She'er 
          (relatives) forbidden to each other by a Lav;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Shimon ha'Temani):</font></b> It is when there is Kares 
          (for Bi'ah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (R. Yehoshua):</font></b> It is when there is Misas Beis 
<br>          Din
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Ben Azai):</font></b> I found a scroll of lineage in 
          Yerushalayim that said 'Ploni is a Mamzer from a married 
          woman'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If a man's wife dies, he may marry her sister. If he 
          divorced her and then she died, he may marry her sister. 
          If she married someone else and died, he may marry her 
          sister.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  If a Yevamah died, the Yavam may marry her sister. If he 
          did Chalitzah and she died, he may marry her sister. If 
          she married another man and died, he may marry her 
          sister.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is R. Akiva's source?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'Lo Yikach Ish Es Eshes Aviv v'Lo Yegaleh Es 
          Kenaf Aviv' - a man will not have Bi'ah with a woman with 
          whom his father had Bi'ah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva holds like R. Yehudah, who says that this 
               refers to a woman raped by his father, which is a 
               Lav (for the son).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is written next to the Isur of a Mamzer, to 
               teach that such unions produce Mamzerim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Simai says that even Chayavei Lavin not of She'er 
               (produce Mamzerim), and R. Yesheivav includes even 
               Chayavei Aseh. They include these from 'v'Lo'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ha'Temani holds like Chachamim, that 'Kenaf 
          Aviv' refers to a Shomeres Yavam of his father, which is 
          Chayavei Kerisus (since she was his uncle's wife);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Isur of a Mamzer is next to this. This shows 
               that Chayavei Kerisos produce Mamzerim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua disagrees, for if so the verse should have 
          mentioned only 'Kenaf Aviv'. Why does the Reisha of the 
          verse discuss Eshes Av?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, this teaches that Mamzerim result only from 
               Arayos as stringent as Eshes Av (Chayavei Misos) 
               until (but not including) Kenaf Aviv (Chayavei 
               Kerisus).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> All agree that a Mamzer does not result from 
          Bi'ah with a Nidah or a Sotah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: YESHAYAH'S FEAR </b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara relates that Menasheh challenged Yeshayah ha'Navi with apparent contradictions between what is written in the Torah and what Yeshayah said. One of those contradictions was that the Torah states, 'No person can see Me and live' (Shemos 33:20), but Yeshayah said that he saw a vision of Hash-m.
</p><p>

The Gemara answers that Yeshayah saw Hash-m through 'an unclear Ispaklarya.' He thought he saw a vision of Hash-m, but he really did not. The <b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b> quotes the <b>SEFER HA'AKEIDAH</b> who explains the verses in Yeshayah based on this Gemara.
</p><p>
The verse (Yeshayah 6:5) states, 'And I said: Woe is me that I am going to be Nidmeisi!' <b>RASHI</b> and other Rishonim explain that upon witnessing the vision of Hash-m, Yeshayah exclaimed that he was destined to be eternally silenced because he saw such a vision. Rashi understands that 'Nidmeisi' means 'silenced,' or put to death.
</p><p>
The Sefer ha'Akeidah explains that 'Nidmeisi' does not mean, 'I am going to die,' but, 'I have been imagining.' Yeshayah meant that before he had that vision, he thought his prophecies were accurate. Once he experienced the vision of Hash-m, however, he realized that he must have been imagining the accuracy of his prophecies, because it is not possible to see an accurate vision of Hash-m. If his present vision was not real, then all of his past prophecies must also have involved his imagination ('Nidmeisi'). That is why Yeshayah exclaimed, 'Woe is me, for <i>I have been imagining</i>,' and he bemoaned the reason for his inability to accurate perceive the message of Hash-m: 'because I am a man of impure lips and I live among a nation with impure lips.'
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AGADAH: THE UNIQUENESS OF MOSHE RABEINU'S PROPHECY</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara relates that Menasheh challenged Yeshayah ha'Navi with apparent contradictions between what is written in the Torah and what Yeshayah said. One of those contradictions was that the Torah states, 'No person can see Me and live' (Shemos 33:20), but Yeshayah said that he saw a vision of Hash-m.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that Yeshayah saw Hash-m through 'an unclear Ispaklarya.' He thought he saw a vision of Hash-m, but he really did not. Moshe Rabeinu, however, saw Hash-m through an 'Ispaklarya ha'Me'irah' -- he perceived the Divine essence with intense clarity.
</p><p>
The Gemara here sheds light on a cryptic statement of the Gemara in Bava Basra (14b). The Gemara there states that 'Moshe transcribed 'his Torah' (the Chumash) and the Parshah of Bil'am.' Why does the Gemara separate the Parshah of Bil'am from the rest of the Torah? If Moshe Rabeinu transcribed the entire Chumash, he obviously transcribed the Parshah of Bil'am as well.
</p><p>
Another cryptic statement appears in the Midrash which discusses the extraordinary level of prophecy Bil'am attained. The Midrash quotes the verse, 'In the nation of Yisrael, there never arose another prophet like Moshe' (Devarim 34:10), and it comments, ''In the nation of Israel' there never arose [a prophet like Moshe], but among the other nations there <i>did</i> arise [such a prophet] -- Bil'am' (Sifri, end of Devarim; see also Bamidbar Rabah 14:34).
</p><p>
How can the Midrash suggest that Bil'am, the embodiment of evil character traits (Avos 5:19), prophesied at the same level as Moshe Rabeinu, the greatest of Tzadikim? The continuation of the Midrash is even more perplexing, as it says that in certain ways Bil'am's revelation was <i>greater</i> than that of Moshe Rabeinu! (See Midrash ha'Zohar Shemos 22b and Bamidbar 193b; Ba'al ha'Turim to Shemos 18:19.)
</p><p>
<b>HA'GA'ON RAV YEHOSHUA LEIB DISKIN</b> (in Teshuvos Maharil Diskin, end of 'Kesavim') presents a particularly interesting approach to both this question and the first. He asks that after Hash-m explicitly told Bil'am, 'Do not curse the nation, for they are a blessed nation' (Bamidbar 22:12), Bil'am carried on with his mission to curse the Jewish people. If Hash-m told Bil'am not to curse the nation, what did he think he could accomplish (see Rashi to Bamidbar 22:20)? Rav Diskin answers by elucidating a concept necessary for understanding prophetic revelation, based on the Gemara here.
</p><p>
The Gemara says that Yeshayah saw Hash-m through 'an unclear Ispaklarya,' and Moshe Rabeinu saw Hash-m through a 'clear Ispaklarya.' In what way is a prophet's vision said to be unclear or clouded? Why would Hashem's message not be clearly revealed to a prophet? Rav Diskin explains that when Hash-m delivers a prophetic message it must first 'materialize' into a worldly vision, one which is within the grasp of the prophet. The prophet must then work at understanding the meaning of the vision. Ultimately, the accuracy of his interpretation depends on how closely he grasps the ways of the Creator, or how much he has subordinated himself to the Divine Will. The barrier of physicality which stands between the prophet and Hash-m 'clouds' the prophet's vision.
</p><p>
Does this mean that a prophet can 'misread' his vision? If such a misreading is possible, how can the people ever rely on a prophet's prophecy? Rav Diskin answers that even when a prophet does not fully grasp all of the fine details of the prophecy and interprets part of it imperfectly, the prophecy still will materialize based on his interpretation. Once he is appointed to be a prophet of Hash-m, he is entrusted with 'prophetic license' to interpret the Divine communications that reach him as he sees fit, and Hash-m will follow through based on the prophet's interpretation. The concept of a Divine message being subject to human explication is not, after all, a particularly novel concept. With regard to a meaningful dream (which the Gemara calls 'a minor prophecy,' Berachos 57b), the Gemara teaches that 'dreams are fulfilled according to the interpretation that is suggested for them' (Berachos 55b; this concept has parallels in the authority granted by the Torah to the Chachamim to interpret the Torah based on the thirteen principles of Halachic derivation).
</p><p>
Nevertheless, since some human intervention is involved, there remains a certain degree of 'distortion' in a prophetic message. The Gemara in Yoma (73b) teaches, 'A prophet's word may be recalled, but the word of the Urim v'Tumim is never recalled.' Divine messages transferred via the Urim v'Tumim come directly from Hash-m. Since there is no human intervention involved in their delivery, they represent the absolute truth of Hash-m. The word of a prophet lacks that element (especially when the prophet cautions others to repent in the face of impending disaster, as in the case of the prophet Yonah), and therefore it may be recalled.
</p><p>
Moshe Rabeinu differed from all other prophets. He obtained the loftiest spiritual level that man can attain. He totally subordinated his will to that of Hash-m (Bamidbar 12:3). His grasp of the Divine Will therefore was total; his visions were seen through a 'clear Ispaklarya.'
</p><p>
Naturally, one would expect that the ability to prophesy granted to Bil'am was through an 'unclear Ispaklarya,' like the ability granted to most prophets. However, had Bil'am prophesied through an 'unclear Ispaklarya,' his prophecy would have had grave consequences. Bil'am, with his terribly unrefined character (Avos 5:19), certainly would have 'seen' in his vision a perverted view of Hashem's message. There was considerable risk that he would interpret his vision as a sign of <i>calamity</i> for Yisrael instead of a sign of their redemption! Since prophecy is fulfilled according to the interpretation of the prophet, such an interpretation could have had dire results.
</p><p>
This approach explains why Bil'am attempted to curse the Jews after Hash-m explicitly told him not to curse them. Bil'am thought that it would <i>not be necessary</i> for him to curse them; he was confident that he could 'use' his gift of prophecy to foretell evil for them by interpreting any vision that Hash-m would send him in accordance with his own clouded perspective.
</p><p>
In order to prevent Bil'am from abusing his powers of prophecy in this way, Hash-m made an exception to the ordinary manner in which He grants prophecy. Bil'am was shown a perfectly clear and pure vision -- he was granted the privilege to see the unadulterated word of Hash-m. 'What Hash-m puts <i>in my mouth</i>, I shall speak' (Bamidbar 22:38). There was nothing for him to misinterpret. His word was like that of the Urim v'Tumim. In this manner, his prophecy was like that of Moshe Rabeinu.
</p><p>
This approach answers the second question as well. The Sifri does not mean that Bil'am reached a level of prophecy as lofty as that of Moshe Rabeinu. Rather, it means that there was <i>one particular aspect</i> of prophecy which no prophet other than Bil'am shared with Moshe Rabeinu. Bil'am's vision was as clear and unfiltered as Moshe Rabeinu's. (This also appears to be the approach of Rabeinu Bachye to Bamidbar 24:4.)
</p><p>
The reason why the Chachamim distinguish between the Parshah of Bil'am and the rest of the Torah is now clear. The Torah is referred to as 'Moshe's Torah' (Malachi 3:22) even though it includes narratives with which the nation was familiar before Moshe Rabeinu transcribed them, and even though it includes prophecies of other prophets such as the forefathers. It is called 'Moshe's Torah' ('Toras Moshe') because when Moshe Rabeinu transcribed the Torah, he wrote every word as he heard it directly from Hash-m. The prophecies of the forefathers -- which were perceived originally through an 'unclear Ispaklarya' -- were now related to Moshe Rabeinu from Hash-m through a 'clear Ispaklarya.' Moshe Rabeinu transcribed the prophecies of the forefathers as they were transmitted through a clear and unfiltered communication. Therefore, it is fitting to refer to the Torah as 'Moshe's Torah.'
</p><p>
There is one exception. Bil'am's prophetic visions were <i>already</i> received in their purest form. There was nothing for Moshe Rabeinu to add to them since they had already been received through a 'clear Ispaklarya.' Hence, the Gemara states that Moshe Rabeinu recorded 'his Torah' -- the communications from Hash-m which Moshe Rabeinu received with his unclouded perception, and 'the Parshah of Bil'am' -- Bil'am's prophecy which had already been communicated and needed only to be recorded. (A similar approach is attributed to Rav Chaim Soloveitchik; see, for example, Ma'atikei Shemu'ah, volume 2, p. 81.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Children of a Nidah are not Mamzerim because the 
               Isur does not inhibit Kidushin;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  'U'Sehi Nidasah Alav' - even when she is Nidah, 
                    Havayah (Kidushin; Havayah and 'u'Sehi' have 
                    the same root) takes effect on her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Also the Isur Sotah the Isur does not inhibit 
               Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> All agree that the child of a Nidah, 
          Sotah, or a Shomeres Yavam (who conceived from a 
          stranger) is not a Mamzer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye did not teach the case of Shomeres Yavam, for 
               he was unsure if the Halachah follows Rav (who says 
               that Ein Kidushin Tofsin to a stranger) or Shmuel 
               (who says that perhaps the verse comes (only) to 
               forbid Bi'ah with a stranger).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Shimon Ben Azai):</font></b> I found a scroll of lineage 
          in Yerushalayim that said that Ploni is a Mamzer from a 
          married woman;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  The scroll also said that the teachings of R. Eliezer ben 
          Yakov are few but clean (the Halachah always follows 
          him);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  It also said that Menasheh killed Yeshayahu.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY MENASHE KILLED YESHAYAHU</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> He judged him and killed him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Menasheh:</font></b> Your Rebbi Moshe said (in the Torah) 'A person 
          will not see Me and live', but you said 'I saw Hash-m 
          sitting on a lofty throne'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Your Rebbi Moshe said 'Who is like Hash-m Elokeinu 
               whenever we call to Him', but you said 'Seek Hash-m 
               when He is found'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Your Rebbi Moshe said ' I will complete the number 
               of your days', but you said (to my father 
               Chizkiyahu) 'I will add 15 years to your days'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Yeshayahu (reasoning to himself):</font></b> Menasheh will not 
          accept my answers. If I answer, I will make him an 
          intentional sinner!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Yeshayahu said a name of Hash-m, and was swallowed 
               into a cedar tree. They brought the tree and were 
               sawing it. When they got to the place of his mouth, 
               he died, because he had said (earlier) 'I dwell 
               among a people of unclean lips'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How can we resolve Menasheh's questions?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (for 'I saw Hash-m' - Beraisa):</font></b> All (other) 
          Nevi'im saw Hash-m through a glass that distorts; Moshe 
          saw through a clear glass (Rashi - only Moshe realized 
          that he did not really see Hash-m).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (for 'Seek Hash-m when He is found'):</font></b> Hash-m is 
          always found to a congregation, but not always to an 
          individual.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> When is He found to an individual?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> He is found during the 10 days 
               between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kipur.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A PERSON'S ALLOTTED LIFESPAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Tana'im argue about 'I will complete the number of your 
          days':
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</font></b> 'I will fulfill the number of 
               your days' - these are the years apportioned to a 
               person when he is born. If he merits, they are 
               fulfilled. If not, they are reduced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, if he merits, they are increased. If 
               not, they are reduced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> It says, 'I will add 15 years to your 
               days'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Akiva:</font></b> The years added were allotted to him from 
               before.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (R. Akiva, for himself):</font></b> It was prophesized 
               'A son will be born to Beis David, his name will be 
               Yoshiyahu'. Menasheh (from whom Yoshiyahu descended) 
               was born during Chizkiyahu's 15 'extra' years!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Chachamim):</font></b> The verse says that he will 
               be born to the house of David, but it did not 
               specify that he will descend from Chizkiyahu!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If his wife died... if his Yevamah died... (he 
          may marry her sister).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> This Mishnah is not needed (the Heter is 
          easily derived from a verse).
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***<b>PEREK RABAN GAMLIEL</b>***
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ACQUISITIONS AND DISQUALIFICATION OF 'YEVAMOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Gamliel):</font></b> If a Yavam gave a Get to his 
          Yevamah, a second Get does not take effect (to forbid the 
          giver to the receiver's relatives). A Ma'amar does not 
          take effect after a Ma'amar, nor does Bi'ah take effect 
          after Bi'ah, nor Chalitzah after Chalitzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, a Get takes effect after a Get and a 
          Ma'amar takes effect after a Ma'amar, but nothing takes 
          effect after Bi'ah or Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If a Yavam gave a Ma'amar to his Yevamah and then a Get, 
          she needs Chalitzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Ma'amar then did Chalitzah, she needs a Get;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Ma'amar and had Bi'ah, this is proper 
          fulfillment of the Mitzvah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Get and then a Ma'amar, she needs a Get and 
          Chalitzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Get and had Bi'ah, she needs a Get and 
          Chalitzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Get and did Chalitzah, nothing is needed 
          after Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  If he did Chalitzah, then gave a Ma'amar or a Get or had 
          Bi'ah; or, if he had Bi'ah, then gave a Ma'amar or a Get 
          or did Chalitzah, nothing takes effect after Chalitzah. 
          (We will ask (53b) why the Mishnah didn't also say that 
          nothing takes effect after Bi'ah.).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AN UNNECESSARY MISHNAH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (49a) states that when a man's wife dies he is permitted to marry her sister. Rav Yosef (50a) asserts that this Mishnah is unnecessary.
</p><p>
What is unnecessary about this Mishnah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mishnah she'Einah Tzerichah) explains that since the verse explicitly states, 'A woman and her sister you shall not marry to cause them to quarrel <i>in her lifetime</i>' (Vayikra 18:18), it was not necessary for Rebbi to teach this law in the Mishnah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Shanah Rebbi) questions Rashi's explanation for Rav Yosef's statement. Tosfos says that it is commonplace for the Mishnayos to teach Halachos that are explicitly mentioned in the verses (Tosfos gives no examples). Tosfos understands that Rav Yosef refers to a different statement in the Mishnah. The Mishnah later teaches that when one performs Yibum with a Yevamah who subsequently dies, he is permitted to marry her sister. Tosfos explains that since the previous Mishnah teaches that a man is permitted to marry his wife's sister after his wife dies, it is obvious that a man is permitted to marry the sister of the Yevamah with whom he did Yibum, after the Yevamah dies.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> All this applies when there is one Yavam, whether 
               there is one Yevamah or two.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Ma'amar to each Yevamah, each needs a Get, 
          and Chalitzah must be done;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Ma'amar to one Yevamah and a Get to the 
          other, the former needs a Get and Chalitzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Ma'amar to one Yevamah, and had Bi'ah with 
          the other, each needs a Get, and Chalitzah must be done;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Ma'amar to one Yevamah and did Chalitzah to 
          the other, the former needs a Get;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Get to each, they need Chalitzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Get to one and had Bi'ah with the other, the 
          latter needs a Get and Chalitzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Get to one and a Ma'amar to the other, the 
          latter needs a Get and Chalitzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  If he gave a Get to one and did Chalitzah to the other, 
          nothing takes effect after Chalitzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b></b>  If he did Chalitzah to both, or did Chalitzah to one and 
          gave a Ma'amar or a Get or had Bi'ah with the other, or 
          had Bi'ah with both, or had Bi'ah with one and gave a 
          Ma'amar or a Get or did Chalitzah to the other, nothing 
          takes effect after Chalitzah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> All this applies to one Yavam and two Yevamos, or 
               two Yevamim and one Yevamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b></b>  If he did Chalitzah and gave a Ma'amar or a Get or had 
          Bi'ah, or, if he had Bi'ah and gave a Ma'amar or a Get or 
          did Chalitzah, nothing takes effect after Chalitzah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is whether the Chalitzah was at the beginning, 
               in the middle or at the end.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> When Bi'ah is at the beginning, nothing takes effect 
               after it. If Bi'ah is in the middle or at the end, 
               things take effect after it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Nechemyah says, Bi'ah and Chalitzah are similar. 
               Whether they are at the beginning, middle or end, 
               nothing takes effect after them.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY 'GET' AND 'MA'AMAR 'WERE ENACTED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> They argue only about a Get after a Get or a 
          Ma'amar after a Ma'amar, but all agree that a single Get 
          or Ma'amar takes effect on a Yevamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why was Get enacted?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A Get permits a married woman; Chalitzah also 
          permits a woman. If people see that Get does not affect a 
          Yevamah, they will think that also Chalitzah does not 
          affect her, and they will come to do Yibum after 
          Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why was Ma'amar enacted?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Ma'amar (i.e. money or a document give for 
          Kidushin) acquires a single woman; Bi'ah also acquires. 
          If people see that Ma'amar does not acquire a Yevamah, 
          they will think that also Bi'ah does not acquire, and 
          they will come to do Yibum after Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did Chachamim say that Zikah remains after 
          a Pasul Bi'ah (i.e. a forbidden Yibum)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer - part 1:</font></b> When Bi'ah is after a Get, this is a 
          decree due to Yibum after Chalitzah (if we would say that 
          no Zikah remains, people would think that it is a proper 
          Yibum);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer - part 2:</font></b> When Bi'ah is after a Ma'amar, this is a 
          decree due to Yibum after Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did Chachamim say that no Zikah remains 
          after a Pasul Chalitzah (i.e. it was forbidden to do 
          Yibum)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There is no reason to decree!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We should decree about Chalitzah after a 
               Get due to Chalitzah after Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> There is no problem if people do extra 
               Chalitzos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We should decree about Chalitzah after a 
               Ma'amar due to Chalitzah after Yibum (lest people 
               think that after Yibum, the Yavam can dismiss her 
               with Chalitzah alone).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> In this case, we require a Get for the 
               Ma'amar. Also when Chalitzah is done after Yibum, 
               people will give a Get!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF PROCEDURES PERFORMED WITH A YEVAMAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah details the different combinations of procedures which one may do with his Yevamah. The Mishnah states that the Halachos are the same whether there is one Yavam with two Yevamos or two Yevamim with one Yevamah. The Mishnah concludes by repeating the combinations of procedures with regard to Chalitzah: 'Chalatz, v'Asah Ma'amar, Nasan Get, u'Ba'al.' The Mishnah adds, 'Ein Achar Chalitzah Klum...' -- 'Nothing takes effect after Chalitzah was done, whether it was done at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end.'
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Chalatz v'Asah) writes that the Mishnah here repeats only the Halachos of one Yavam with one Yevamah. It does not continue with the Halachos of one Yavam with two Yevamos which the Mishnah discussed until now.
</p><p>
However, when Rashi in his very next comment (DH Bein b'Techilah Bein b'Emtza) comments on the statement of the Mishnah that nothing takes effect when it follows Chalitzah regardless of when Chalitzah was done, he explains that the case of 'b'Emtza' (when Chalitzah was done in the middle) refers to a case of one Yavam with <i>two</i> Yevamos. The Yavam gave a Get to the first Yevamah and did Chalitzah with the second Yevamah, and then he did Ma'amar with one of them (in which case the Ma'amar is not effective and no Get is necessary, since Chalitzah was already done).
</p><p>
Rashi then explains that the case of 'Bi'ah b'Emtza' refers to where there are <i>three</i> Yevamos (DH ha'Bi'ah b'Emtza)!
</p><p>
Why does Rashi first explain that the Mishnah refers to a case of one Yavam with one Yevamah, and then explain that the Mishnah refers to cases of multiple Yevamos? (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that Rashi does not mean that the end of the Mishnah addresses specifically a case of one Yavam with one Yevamah. Rather, he means merely that the end of the Mishnah is not a continuation of the previous discussion, but it refers back to what is written in the beginning of the Mishnah. The Mishnah already mentions that this Halachah applies to a case of two Yevamos as well, and thus -- when he describes the cases of Chalitzah and 'Bi'ah b'Emtza' -- Rashi explains that the case is one of multiple Yevamos.
</p><p>
Why, though, does Rashi mention first that the end of the Mishnah refers back to 'one Yavam and one Yevamah'? He should say simply that the end of the Mishnah refers to all of the cases mentioned earlier in the Mishnah!
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> explains that Rashi understands that this part of the Mishnah refers to a case of one Yavam with one Yevamah because the Mishnah uses the same wording that it uses earlier when it refers to a case of one Yavam with one Yevamah. If the Mishnah here refers to cases in which there are more than one Yavam or one Yevamah, it should add an additional possibility: it should mention not only 'Chalatz v'Asah Ma'amar...' but 'Chalatz <i>v'Chalatz</i> v'Asah Ma'amar....' Since the Mishnah does not mention the possibility of doing two acts of Chalitzah or two acts of Yibum, it must refer only to a case of one Yavam with one Yevamah.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi explain that the case of 'Chalitzah b'Emtza' refers to a case of two Yevamos? The answer is that the case of 'Chalitzah b'Emtza' is possible only with two Yevamos. In order to have the Chalitzah in the middle, the Yavam must have given a Get to one Yevamah, did Chalitzah, and then did Ma'amar. If there is only one Yevamah, the Chalitzah is not 'b'Emtza' but is a proper Chalitzah, because it is supposed to follow a Get with the same woman. In such a case, the Chalitzah certainly is valid (while the Mishnah here discusses the difference between an invalid Chalitzah and an invalid Bi'ah).
</p><p>
Why, though, does Rashi not explain that the case refers to <i>one</i> Yevamah with whom the Yavam did <i>Ma'amar</i> first, followed by Chalitzah, and then gave her a Get, in which case the Chalitzah indeed is invalid? Rashi does not explain the case in this way because such a case teaches no Chidush of 'Ein Achar Chalitzah Klum.' In such a case, nothing else is necessary after the Chalitzah: a Get was given for the Ma'amar, and the woman was permitted to remarry by the Chalitzah. It must be that Ma'amar was done after the Chalitzah, and the Mishnah's Chidush is that one does not need to give a Get for that Ma'amar.
</p><p>
Still, however, why does Rashi not explain that the case refers to <i>one</i> Yevamah with whom the Yavam did Ma'amar both before <i>and</i> after the Chalitzah, and the Chidush of the Mishnah is that Ma'amar after Chalitzah does not need a Get? The answer is that the Mishnah lists only cases in which each procedure is performed only once. Accordingly, the only case in which only one of each possible procedure is used, and in which the Mishnah still can teach a Chidush of 'Ein Achar Chalitzah Klum,' is a case of two Yevamos in which the Yavam gave a Get to one, did Chalitzah with the other, and then did Ma'amar with one of them.
</p><p>
The same question applies to the case of 'Bi'ah b'Emtza,' which, Rashi explains, refers to three Yevamos. In that case, the Yavam gave a Get to the first Yevamah, did Bi'ah with the second, and then did Ma'amar with the third. He must give a Get for the Ma'amar, and he must do Chalitzah with one of them in order to release them (since the Bi'ah was invalid due to the Get he gave to the first Yevamah). Why does Rashi not explain that the case refers to <i>two</i> Yevamos, where the Yavam gave a Get to the first Yevamah, did Bi'ah with the same one, and then did Ma'amar with the second Yevamah? Alternatively, the Yavam gave a Get to the first Yevamah, did Bi'ah with the second, and then did Ma'amar with the first. Why does Rashi explain that the case involves <i>three</i> Yevamos?
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> (see also <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>) answers that Rashi indeed could explain that two of the procedures were done with one Yevamah. However, Rashi prefers to give an example of a case in which the procedures result in an Isur to marry the Yevamah's relatives. In the case of two Yevamos, their relatives are already forbidden to the Yavam (either because of the Get he gave to one, or because of the Bi'ah he did with the other).
</p><p>
This answer, however, needs further elucidation. It does not explain why Rashi does not suggest a scenario in which the Yavam gave a Get to, and then did Bi'ah with, the same Yevamah. Moreover, there are three practical ramifications for the Halachah of 'Yesh Achareha Klum':
</p><p>
1. The Bi'ah itself does not consummate a full Yibum, but rather Chalitzah is needed in order to break the Zikah entirely.
</p><p>
2. If the Yavam does Ma'amar after he does Bi'ah with a Yevamah, that Ma'amar takes effect and he must give that Yevamah a Get.
</p><p>
3. If the Yavam does Ma'amar after he does Bi'ah, and then he divorces the Yevamah with a Get, he becomes forbidden to her relatives because the Ma'amar and Get took effect.
</p><p>
In the case of 'Bi'ah b'Emtza,' Rashi explains that the practical ramification of 'Yesh Achareha Klum' is that the Yavam is forbidden to her relatives (the third practical consequence). However, when he explains the consequences of 'Chalitzah b'Emtza,' Rashi writes that the <i>Ma'amar</i> does not take effect after Chalitzah (the second consequence). When he discusses 'Bi'ah b'Sof,' he says that the practical consequence is that the Yavam must do <i>Chalitzah</i> after the Bi'ah since the Bi'ah did not break the Zikah entirely (the first consequence). Why does Rashi mention these different consequences in each case? This question requires further analysis.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) A SECOND YEVAMAH'S ISUR OF 'ESHES ACH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that the Chachamim enacted that the Yavam must perform Chalitzah if he did Ma'amar and then Bi'as Yibum. They enacted this Gezeirah so that people not mistakenly assume that Bi'ah after <i>Bi'ah</i> is valid.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Iy Bi'ah Achar Ma'amar) explains that if only a Get (and not Chalitzah) would be required for the Ma'amar done before the Bi'ah, people might think that since the Bi'ah was an effective act of Yibum even though it followed Ma'amar, it is also an acceptable act of Yibum when it follows <i>Bi'ah</i>. They will mistakenly assume that if the Yavam does Bi'ah with one Yevamah, he should do Bi'ah with the second Yevamah as well. In truth, however, one who does Bi'ah with the second Yevamah transgresses the Isur of 'Eshes Ach.'
</p><p>
Why does Rashi write that the concern is that one might transgress the Isur of 'Eshes Ach'? What Isur of 'Eshes Ach' exists in this case? The Gemara earlier (10b) says that according to Rebbi Yochanan, once one brother does Yibum with one Yevamah, the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' is removed from all of the other brothers and Tzaros. Hence, once the Yavam does Bi'ah with the first Yevamah, the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' is removed from the second Yevamah! Moreover, even Reish Lakish (who disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan, 10b) agrees that when one Yavam does Bi'ah with two Yevamos one after the other the Yavam is forbidden to the second Yevamah only with an Isur Aseh, but not with a Lo Ta'aseh or Isur Kares. (<b>YASHRESH YAKOV</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> explains that Rashi does not mean that the second Yevamah is forbidden because of the Isur of 'Eshes Ach.' Rather, he means that she is forbidden because of an Isur which <i>stems from</i> the Isur of 'Eshes Ach.' In this case, she is prohibited by the Isur Aseh of living with a Yevamah with whom one's brother already did Yibum ('Keivan she'Banah Shuv Lo Yivneh'). The Aruch la'Ner supports this interpretation from the words of Rashi who writes that the brother will be guilty of 'touching upon (v'Ka <i>Paga</i>) the Isur of Eshes Ach,' and not simply that he will be 'liable for (or transgress) the Isur of Eshes Ach.'
</p><p>
The author of the footnotes to the <b>ME'IRI</b> (11a, fn. 12) adds that according to this interpretation, Rashi follows the opinion of the Rishonim who maintain that the Isur of 'Lo Yivneh' is not a new Lo Ta'aseh. Rather, the verse 'Lo Yivneh' merely reveals that the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' in this situation has the status of a Lav and is not an Isur Kares.
</p><p>
It is not clear, however, why Rashi here chooses to express the Isur Aseh in such terms. Hne should write simply that there is an Isur d'Oraisa, as he writes earlier (DH Mishum d'Mehani).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHASH</b> suggests that Rashi here does not refer to a case of one Yavam with two Yevamos, but rather to a case of two Yevamim with one Yevamah. In that case, according to Reish Lakish the second Yavam who lives with the Yevamah transgressed the Isur of 'Eshes Ach.' (This is also the way the <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> records the case: there are either two Yevamos and one Yavam, or two Yevamim and one Yevamah.)
</p><p>
Why, though, does Rashi mention specifically the Isur of 'Eshes Ach,' which applies only according to Reish Lakish? The Gemara is explaining the Mishnah, which must be consistent with both Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan. Why does Rashi explain it only according to the view of Reish Lakish? Moreover, if two Yevamim live successively with one Yevamah, the second one transgresses not only an Isur of 'Eshes Ach,' but an Isur of 'Eshes Ish'!
</p><p>
Perhaps the Rashash means that the enactment was made due to a concern that one Yavam might marry the other Yavam's wife <i>after he divorces her</i> (or after he dies and leaves behind children), in which case everyone agrees that there will be an Isur Kares of 'Eshes Ach' (because of the <i>second</i> brother).
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY DOESN'T A 'GET' TAKE EFFECT AFTER A 'GET'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Why does R. Gamliel say that a Get does 
          not take effect after a Get, nor a Ma'amar after a 
          Ma'amar?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> R. Gamliel is unsure whether or not a 
          Get repels (Zikah), and whether or not a Ma'amar 
          acquires;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the first Get repelled, there is nothing left for 
               the second Get to do. If the first Get did not 
               repel, neither does the second!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the first Ma'amar acquires, the second Ma'amar 
               cannot acquire. If the first Ma'amar does not 
               acquire, neither does the second!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> R. Gamliel admits that a Get 
          takes effect after a Ma'amar, and a Ma'amar after a Get. 
          A Get takes effect after Yibum which followed a Ma'amar, 
          and a Ma'amar takes effect after Yibum which followed a 
          Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If R. Gamliel was in doubt, when Yibum is in the 
               middle (it should acquire if possible, i.e. if the 
               Ma'amar did not acquire or the Get did not repel. In 
               any case no Zikah remains after the Yibum, so) it 
               should be like Yibum at the beginning, i.e. nothing 
               should take effect after it!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> When Bi'ah is at the beginning, 
                    nothing takes effect after it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> R. Gamliel is certain that Get repels 
          and that Ma'amar acquires. However, it was enacted that 
          Get repels one 'side' (part of the Zikah), and Ma'amar 
          acquires one (the 'other') side;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A second Get doesn't work, since the first Get 
               already repelled as much as a Get can;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A second Ma'amar doesn't work, since the first 
               already acquired as much as a Ma'amar can.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A Get after a Ma'amar takes effect, and also a 
               Ma'amar after a Get, since one acquires (one side), 
               and one repels (the other side).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that we enacted that each Yavam has a 
               power to acquire or repel with a Ma'amar or Get 
               (therefore, a Get after a Get or a Ma'amar after a 
               Ma'amar takes effect).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  (According to R. Gamliel,) a Pasul Yibum is better than a 
          Ma'amar in one respect, and in one respect it is 
          inferior;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In one way it is better. Ma'amar does not take 
               effect after Ma'amar, but Yibum takes effect after 
               Ma'amar;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> In one way it is inferior. Ma'amar acquires 
               everything that a Get leaves over (i.e. so a 
               subsequent Ma'amar does not take effect), whereas 
               Yibum after a Get does not acquire all the remaining 
               Zikah (so Ma'amar takes effect after the Yibum).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE CASE OF 'GET' AFTER 'GET', AND 'MA'AMAR' AFTER 'MA'AMAR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> In what case did R. Gamliel say that a Get 
          does not take effect after a Get? If two Yevamos fell to 
          one Yavam, and he gave a Get to each (e.g. to Leah and 
          then to Chanah);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Gamliel says, he does Chalitzah to Leah and he is 
               forbidden to her relatives. He is permitted to 
               Chanah's relatives;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim forbid him to the relatives of both of 
               them. He does Chalitzah to one of them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The same applies when there are two Yevamim and one 
               Yevamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  In what case did R. Gamliel say that a Ma'amar does not 
          take effect after a Ma'amar? If two Yevamos fell to one 
          Yavam, and he gave a Ma'amar to Leah and then to Chanah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Gamliel says, he gives a Get and does Chalitzah 
               to Leah and is forbidden to her relatives. He is 
               permitted to If two Yevamos fell to one Yavam, and 
               he gave a Get to each (e.g. to Leah and then to 
               Chanah's relatives;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that he gives a Get to each and is 
               forbidden to the relatives of both of them. He does 
               Chalitzah to one of them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The same applies when there are two Yevamim and one 
               Yevamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Gamliel says that he does Chalitzah to Leah. 
          This refutes Shmuel!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> If one does Chalitzah to Ba'alas ha'Get, 
               her Tzarah is not exempted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel's law is like the opinion that Yesh Zikah. 
          R. Gamliel holds that Ein Zikah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> If R. Gamliel holds that Ein Zikah, Chachamim 
          hold that Yesh Zikah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'GET ACHAR GET': CHALITZAH WITH THE FIRST YEVAMAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa discusses a case of 'Get Achar Get' in which there is one Yavam and two Yevamos. The Yavam gives a Get to the first Yevamah and then gives a Get to the second Yevamah. Raban Gamliel rules that only the first Get is valid. He maintains that there exists only one opportunity to give a Get among all of the Yevamim and Yevamos. Accordingly, he requires that the Yavam do Chalitzah with the first Yevamah (to whom he gave a valid Get). The Yavam then remains prohibited to the relatives of the first Yevamah but is permitted to the relatives of the second Yevamah.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Choletz l'Rishonah) asks why Raban Gamliel requires that the Yavam do Chalitzah with the <i>first</i> Yevamah, when Chalitzah with the second Yevamah should also suffice. Rashi answers that Raban Gamliel is merely giving good advice. Since the Yavam is already prohibited to the relatives of the first Yevamah because of the Get he gave to her, he might as well do Chalitzah with her and not with the second Yevamah, so that he remain permitted to the relatives of the second Yevamah. If he does Chalitzah with the second Yevamah, he will become prohibited to her relatives as well (because of the Isur of 'the relatives of one's Chalutzah').
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> asks that there is a more basic reason for why Chalitzah should be done with the first Yevamah. The Gemara earlier (44a) says that when one has the option to do Chalitzah with one of two Yevamos -- one of whom is disqualified from marrying a Kohen ('Pesulah l'Kehunah') and one who is permitted to marry a Kohen, he should do Chalitzah with the one who is already Pesulah l'Kehunah because 'one should not spill his wash-water when someone else needs it.' Similarly, in the case of the Beraisa here, the first Yevamah is already Pesulah l'Kehunah since she received a valid Get, and therefore the Yavam should do Chalitzah with her and not with the second Yevamah who is not yet Pesulah l'Kehunah. Why does Rashi not give this reason?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that Rashi understands that even according to Raban Gamliel, the Get given to the second Yevamah also disqualifies her from marrying a Kohen. Although it does not prohibit the Yavam from marrying her relatives, it does prohibit her from marrying a Kohen. Accordingly, both Yevamos are Pesulos l'Kehunah, and thus Rashi gives a different reason for why the Yavam should do Chalitzah with the first Yevamah and not with the second.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHASH</b> rejects the Maharsha's answer based on the Gemara later (52a) which says that a Get which is able to disqualify a woman from marrying a Kohen is also able to prohibit a Yevamah to the Yavam. If, as the Maharsha suggests, the second Get is able to disqualify the woman from marrying a Kohen, it should also prohibit the Yevamah to the Yavam and, consequently, prohibit the Yavam from marrying her relatives.
</p><p>
The Rashash therefore suggests a different reason for why Rashi does not explain that Chalitzah will disqualify the second Yevamah from marrying a Kohen. The Beraisa continues and says that 'the same Halachah' applies to a case of two Yevamim with one Yevamah. The Beraisa implies that when two Yevamim each give a Get to the Yevamah, only the first Get is effective (according to Raban Gamliel), and the <i>first</i> Yavam should do Chalitzah with the Yevamah. In that case, however, there is only one Yevamah who will become Pesulah l'Kehunah regardless of which Yavam does Chalitzah with her. The Maharsha's reasoning that 'one should not spill his wash-water' does not explain why the first Yavam does Chalitzah in this case. Therefore, Rashi writes that it is advisable for the first Yavam to do Chalitzah so that the second Yavam not become forbidden to the Yevamah's relatives unnecessarily.
</p><p>
This answer, however, is not entirely satisfactory. In the case of two Yevamim, to whom is the Beraisa's advice directed? It cannot be directed to the second Yavam (telling him that the first one should perform Chalitzah), because he has no influence over the second Yavam's actions; perhaps the second Yavam will refuse to do Chalitzah. Moreover, the Beraisa cannot be advising the first Yavam to do Chalitzah, because he is not the one who stands to gain. It seems more logical to suggest that the Beraisa does not intend to offer 'good advice,' but rather to teach that it is a <i>Mitzvah</i> for the first Yavam to do Chalitzah in order that his brother not become prohibited from marrying the relatives of the Yevamah.
</p><p>
(The Rashash's question on the Maharsha may be resolved as follows. The Gemara (52a) says that what works as a 'Rei'ach ha'Get' for a divorce for <i>marriage</i> also works to disqualify a woman from marrying a Kohen. However, a second Get given after a first Get disqualifies her from marrying a Kohen only as a Get <i>Yevamim</i>, which is different from an ordinary Get that serves to break a bond of marriage. Accordingly, it is possible that such a Get will <i>not</i> be able to prohibit the Yavam to the relatives of the Yevamah, even though it is able to disqualify the Yevamah from marrying a Kohen.)
</p><p>
(c) Perhaps Rashi infers his reason from the words of the Beraisa. The Beraisa makes no mention of any condition that the women were permitted to marry Kohanim before each Get was given. This implies that the ruling of the Beraisa applies even when both women were already Pesulos l'Kehunah -- the law is that the Yavam should do Chalitzah with the first Yevamah. In such a case, the reasoning of 'one should not spill his wash-water' clearly does not apply. Rashi has no choice but to explain that the Beraisa is advising ('Etzah Tovah') the Yavam that he do Chalitzah with the first Yevamah so that he not become prohibited to the relatives of the second Yevamah.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Seifa):</font></b> The same applies to two Yevamim and one Yevamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This refutes Rabah bar Rav Huna!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> A Yevamah who did a Chalitzah 
               Pesulah (i.e. Yibum was forbidden) must do Chalitzah 
               with all the brothers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (and Rejection of Inference):</font></b> No, Chachamim agree 
          that Ein Zikah. They argue about a Get after a Get and a 
          Ma'amar after a Ma'amar. (Rabah bar Rav Huna's law is 
          like the opinion that Yesh Zikah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Gamliel):</font></b> If he gave a Ma'amar to Leah and 
          then to Chanah, he gives a Get and does Chalitzah to Leah 
          and is forbidden to her relatives. He is permitted to 
          Chanah's relatives.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Since R. Gamliel holds that a Ma'amar doesn't 
          take effect after a Ma'amar, he should be allowed to do 
          Yibum with the first (Leah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There is a decree not to, lest people come to do 
          Yibum with Chanah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TANA'IM' WHO HOLD THAT 'MA'AMAR' FULLY ACQUIRES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. Gamliel, Beis Shamai, R. Shimon, Ben 
          Azai, and R. Nechemyah all hold that Ma'amar fully 
          acquires.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  We learned about R. Gamliel above (a Ma'amar after a 
          Ma'amar does not take effect).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> Reuven and Shimon were married 
          to sisters, and their brother Levi was single. Reuven 
          died; Levi gave the Yevamah a Ma'amar, then Shimon died. 
          Levi may keep his wife (the Ma'amar is full Kidushin). 
          Her sister is exempt, for she is Achos Ishto.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  (R. Shimon and Chachamim argue (96b) about two minors 
          above nine years old who had Bi'ah with their Yevamah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon to Chachamim):</font></b> If the first Yibum 
          (e.g. of Levi) is considered Yibum, Reuven's Yibum is not 
          Yibum (to forbid her to Levi). If Levi's Yibum is not 
          Yibum, neither is Reuven's!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We equated the Yibum of a nine-year-old to a 
               Ma'amar, and R. Shimon says that the second Yibum 
               does not take effect after the first!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Ben Azai):</font></b> A Ma'amar takes effect after a 
          Ma'amar when there are two Yevamim and one Yevamah, but 
          not when there is one Yavam and two Yevamos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Nechemyah):</font></b> Yibum and Chalitzah have the 
          same law. Whether they come at the beginning, middle, or 
          end, nothing takes effect after them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Pasul Yibum is like a Ma'amar, and he says that 
               nothing takes effect after it!
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PROPER WAY TO DO 'YIBUM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> How is this? If he gave a Ma'amar...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> 'How is this' connotes that we explain the 
          Reisha (a Get after a Get), but the Mishnah does not do 
          so!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Indeed, the Mishnah never explains 
          a Get after a Get or a Ma'amar after a Ma'amar. They are 
          like in the Beraisa (above);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, it asks how we permit a Yevamah (who 
               received a Ma'amar and a Get). It teaches that she 
               needs Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he gave a Ma'amar and did Bi'ah, he did the 
          Mitzvah properly.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> This supports Rav Huna.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> The proper way do Yibum is to Mekadesh 
               the Yevamah first (with a Ma'amar).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps the Mishnah says that this is also a 
          proper way to do Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is not obvious;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We learned that a Ma'amar removes Zikah of Yibum and 
               makes her like an Arusah awaiting Nisu'in. One might 
               have thought that Bi'ah afterwards is not the 
               Mitzvah (of Yibum, just standard Nisu'in)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Huna:</font></b> The proper way do Yibum is after being Mekadesh 
          the Yevamah. If he did Yibum and then gave a Ma'amar, he 
          acquired her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious, for Yibum acquired her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, (even) if he did Yibum without a 
          Ma'amar, he acquired her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If he does Yibum without a Ma'amar, 
          he is lashed. (If he acquired her, why would he be 
          lashed?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The lashes are only mid'Rabanan;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav lashes for the following:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  One who is Mekadesh through Bi'ah, or in the 
                    market (in public), or without prior 
                    arrangement;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> One who is Mevatel (invalidates) a Get (that 
                    was sent with a Shali'ach, for his wife may 
                    remarry before hearing that the Get is Batel);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>One who tells witnesses that he is being 
                    coerced to divorce, and the Get he will give is 
                    invalid (people will suspect that his wife's 
                    future children are Mamzerim);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b></b> One who is brazen to a Shali'ach of Chachamim;
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b></b> One who stays in excommunication for 30 days 
                    without coming to Beis Din to request that it 
                    be lifted;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b></b> One who lives by his mother-in-law.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Is he lashed only if he lives by her, but 
               not for passing by? Rav Sheshes lashed a man for 
               passing by his mother-in-law's porch!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That was a special case. He was suspected of 
               having Bi'ah with her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Chachamim of Nehardai):</font></b> Rav lashes only for 
          one who is Mekadesh through Bi'ah without prior 
          arrangement.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> Some say that he lashes even with prior 
          arrangement, because it is lewdness.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ENACTMENT OF 'MA'AMAR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> How is Ma'amar done? He gives her money, or 
          something of monetary value;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How is it done with a document?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Obviously, it is like Kidushin through a 
               document! We learned that he writes to her on paper 
               or on pottery, even if it is not worth a Perutah, 
               'you are Mekudeshes to me'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Beraisa asks about a Kesuvah of 
               Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He writes 'I, Ploni, accept to feed and support 
          my Yevamah Plonis properly;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Kesuvah is collected from the property of the 
               deceased;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If there is no property from the deceased, Chachamim 
               enacted that she has from the Yavam's property, so 
               it should not be light in his eyes to divorce her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> If one gave to his Yevamah a Get and 
          said 'You are divorced from me, and are not permitted to 
          any man', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Get to a Yevamah is mid'Rabanan. Perhaps only a 
               Get that permits a married woman affects a Yevamah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps it forbids Yibum, lest it be confused 
               with a proper Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> We are concerned lest it be confused with 
          a proper Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rabah bar Chanan):</font></b> If so, will we forbid Yibum 
          if he gave her any piece of paper?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> A mere paper does not forbid a girl to a 
          Kohen. The Get Abaye asked about forbids a girl to 
          Kehunah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'They (Kohanim) will not marry a woman 
               divorced <i>from her husband</i>' - even if she was 
               divorced only from her husband (but was not 
               permitted to anyone), Kohanim may not marry her 
               (even after her husband dies);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is 'the scent of a Get', which forbids to 
               Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> We learned that if a man asked a scribe 
          to write a Get to his Arusah to give it after Nisu'in, 
          the Get is valid, since he could divorce her now;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WRITING A 'GET' PRIOR TO 'YIBUM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rami bar Chama questions whether a man may write a Get for his Yevamah to give to her later, after he does Yibum and marries her. The Gemara suggests that perhaps such a Get is valid. Since the Yevamah is bound to him, she is considered like an Arusah, and the law in the case of an Arusah is that the man may write a Get which he will give to her (and which will take effect) only after he marries her.
</p><p>
How can the Gemara even suggest such a possibility? There is a fundamental difference between a Yevamah and an Arusah. An Arusah has the status of a married woman mid'Oraisa, and thus a Get may be given to her and render her a Gerushah (divorcee) mid'Oraisa. In contrast, a Yevamah is not considered married mid'Oraisa at all; if her Yavam gives her a Get in that state, the Get is ineffective mid'Oraisa. It was only the Chachamim who instituted that if a Yavam gives his Yevamah a Get, she becomes forbidden to all of the brothers.
</p><p>
The next statement of the Gemara is also puzzling. The Gemara says that the reason why a Get written before Yibum might not take effect is that the Yavam did not yet do Ma'amar with the Yevamah. The Gemara implies that had Ma'amar been done, the Get certainly would be able to take effect after the act of Yibum. Why, though, would the Get take effect? Even if the Yavam did Ma'amar, the Get remains merely a rabbinical enactment and should not be able to take effect after he marries her -- when a Get mid'Oraisa is needed to divorce her. If the Gemara refers to a Get which takes effect only mid'Rabanan (such as to prohibit her from marrying a Kohen), even if the Yavam did <i>not</i> do Ma'amar he still may give the Yevamah a Get mid'Rabanan which takes effect (to prohibit her to the brothers). What difference does it make if the Yavam did Ma'amar?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that Rami bar Chama's question indeed is whether a Get written during Zikah works after marriage as a Get <i>mid'Rabanan</i>. That is, the Get certainly does not permit her to remarry. Rather, the Gemara's question is whether the Get disqualifies the woman from marrying a Kohen. Since a Get (mid'Rabanan) which the Yavam gives <i>before</i> the marriage disqualifies her from marrying a Kohen, perhaps a Get which the Yavam writes before the Yibum but <i>gives</i> only <i>after</i> the Yibum also prohibits her from marrying a Kohen.
</p><p>
However, if this is the Gemara's question, the answer should be obvious. Since the Yavam can disqualify her from marrying a Kohen by giving the Get now (before Yibum), it is 'in his hands' ('b'Yado') to disqualify her and thus the Get he gives later (after Yibum) should also take effect! What difference does it make if the Get is written before Ma'amar or after Ma'amar?
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> explain that the Chachamim instituted the concept of a pre-Ma'amar Get only for the purpose of prohibiting the Yevamah to the brothers. This Get serves an entirely different purpose than a Get given to a woman who is married, or even a Get given to a Yevamah after Ma'amar, both of which serve to sever a bond. The pre-Ma'amar Get serves only to prohibit her to the brothers. The Gemara means that it is not in the Yavam's hands to divorce the Yevamah with a normal Get during the period of Zikah, because the type of Get which the Chachamim instituted for that period is not the type which severs a bond. Accordingly, perhaps it will not be effective after the Yavam and Yevamah are married.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> cites the <b>RIVAM</b> who answers that the question of the Gemara is whether or not a Get written before Ma'amar may be used after the <i>Ma'amar</i> (and not after the <i>marriage</i>) in order to revoke the Ma'amar. The Gemara's question is based on the presumption that there is a difference in essence between a Get given before Ma'amar and a Get given after Ma'amar (as explained in the previous answer). Again, the Gemara is discussing whether the Get works mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> writes that the words of the Gemara support neither of the previous explanations. Rather, the Gemara is asking that perhaps the Get might work on a d'Oraisa level command, and effect a valid divorce, after she is married. This also seems to be the understanding of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 3:6) and perhaps <b>RASHI</b> here as well.
</p><p>
The Rashba explains that the Gemara suggests that the fact that <i>Chalitzah</i> may be performed with a Yevamah to break a Zikah indicates that the Yavam has the power of 'divorce' even before he does Yibum. It is considered 'in his hands' to effect an annulment of the bond of Zikah, since he could severe the bond with Chalitzah. This element of 'b'Yado' gives him the authority to write a Get now which will take effect only after Yibum is performed and the marriage bond created.
</p><p>
When the Gemara mentions Ma'amar, it refers to a second question. If the answer to the first question is that it is <i>not</i> considered in his hands to break the bond of Zikah now and thus he may not write a Get to take effect later, perhaps he at least may write a Get before Ma'amar to take effect after Ma'amar which will disqualify her from marrying a Kohen (as Tosfos (in (a) above) explains the question of the Gemara). On the other hand, perhaps such a Get may be written only after Ma'amar. That is the second question of the Gemara.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A 'GET' FOR 'MA'AMAR' AND NOT FOR 'ZIKAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks whether a Get can be given for Ma'amar and not for Zikah. <b>RASHI</b> (DH O Dilma) explains that if there would exist such a Get, it simply would annul the Ma'amar and restore the Yevamah to the status she had before Ma'amar was done. The Yevamah would be permitted to all of the brothers, while she would be prohibited to the brother who wrote the Get to annul his Ma'amar.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi write that the Yevamah would be prohibited to the brother who wrote the Get? If the Yevamah returns to the status she had before Ma'amar was done, <i>all</i> of the brothers -- including the one who gave the Get -- should be permitted to the Yevamah.
</p><p>
Rashi later (DH Nasan) writes that if the Yevamah is permitted to the brother who gave the Get for Ma'amar, people might err and permit a Yevamah who received a Get for <i>Zikah</i> to marry any of the brothers (in such a case, however, the woman is prohibited to them). Therefore, the Chachamim decreed that a woman who receives a Get for Ma'amar remains forbidden to the brothers, lest people mistakenly assume that a Get given for Zikah permits her to the brothers. (Whether there is such a Gezeirah or not is the subject of dispute earlier (32a) between two versions of a statement of Rava.) This Gezeirah, however, cannot be the basis for Rashi's words. When Rashi here writes that the brother who gave the Get is prohibited to the Yevamah, he cannot mean that the brother is prohibited because of the Gezeirah. If the Chachamim applied such a Gezeirah in this case, then not only should the brother who gave the Get be prohibited to the Yevamah, but all of the other brothers should be prohibited to her as well! If, on the other hand, the Chachamim did not apply such a Gezeirah in this case, then even the brother who did Ma'amar and gave a Get should be permitted to the Yevamah! (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH O Dilma)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> While the Rishonim do not address the source for Rashi's ruling, they do discuss the logical basis for his ruling.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RABEINU AVRAHAM MIN HA'HAR</b> writes that the fact that the brother gave a Get to annul the Ma'amar demonstrates that he has no desire to consummate the Ma'amar and do Yibum with this woman. When Rashi writes that the one who gave the Get cannot do Yibum with the woman, he means that by giving the Get the Yavam shows that he has no desire to 'build the house of the dead brother,' just as one shows when he gives a Get for the Zikah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> (32a) explains that the Gemara earlier (12a) teaches that a Ketanah (minor) who did Mi'un with one of the Yevamim after the death of her husband remains prohibited to the brother to whom she did Mi'un, even though her Mi'un uproots the entire Kidushin retroactively. She is permitted to all of the other Yevamim as if she was never married to their brother. Since she did an act to sever the bond with that particular Yavam, the Chachamim decreed that she is prohibited to him because it appears as though she was his 'Eshes Achiv,' the wife of his brother.
</p><p>
It is evident that when a Yevamah (such as a Ketanah) does an action (Mi'un) to break the bond between her and the Yavam, there is reason to prohibit them to each other. Similarly, in the case of the Gemara here, the Yavam who gave a Get did an act to sever the bond between them; even though his act did not uproot the Zikah, it showed that he did not want to do Yibum with the Yevamah, and thus there is reason to prohibit the Yevamah to him.
</p><p>
(According to both explanations, Rashi here follows the opinion that the Chachamim did <i>not</i> institute a Gezeirah lest people confuse this case with that of a Get given for Zikah (that is, the opinion of the second version of Rava's statement on 32a), even though Rashi in his next comment cites the other opinion that all of the brothers become prohibited because 'they might confuse this case with that of a normal Get [given to break the Zikah, and not just the Ma'amar].')
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he told the scribe to write a Get for a woman who 
               is not Mekudeshes to him, the Get is invalid, since 
               he cannot divorce her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> If one wrote a Get to his 
          Yevamah, what is the law? (Rashi - can he divorce her 
          with it after Yibum? Tosfos - does it disqualify to 
          Kehunah? Ri - if he wrote it before giving a Ma'amar, can 
          he give the Get to undo the Ma'amar?)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since she is tied to him (Zekukah to do Yibum or 
               Chalitzah), she is like his Arusah, so the Get is 
               valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since he did not give a Ma'amar, we do not say 
               this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The question is unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Chanina):</font></b> If one wrote a Get for the Zikah 
          (to forbid Yibum) but not to undo his Ma'amar; or, to 
          undo his Ma'amar but not for the Zikah, what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Ma'amar adds to Zikah, since he wrote that the 
               Get only works for one, this is like divorcing half 
               a wife, which has no effect;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps Zikah and Ma'amar coexist independently 
               (and he can undo one)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> We can answer this from Rava's law (32a, that 
          it works)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> If he gave a Get to undo his Ma'amar, the 
               Tzarah is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Response:</font></b> Rava was sure, but R. Chanina was unsure about 
          this.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MA'AMAR' AFTER 'CHALITZAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he did Chalitzah and gave a Ma'amar 
          (nothing takes effect after Chalitzah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> This is like R. Akiva, who says that Ein 
          Kidushin Tofsin b'Chayavei Lavin. Chachamim say that 
          things take effect after Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah cannot be like R. Akiva!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reisha):</font></b> If he gave a Get and a Ma'amar, she needs 
               a Get and Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to R. Akiva, once she got a Get, Ma'amar 
               would not take effect!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</font></b> If one gave a Get to his 
                    Yevamah, he may never do Yibum - 'Her first 
                    husband who divorced her (cannot remarry her)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> A Get to a Yevamah is only 
          mid'Rabanan. The verse is only an Asmachta.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> Our Mishnah 
          is like R. Akiva, who considers a Chalutzah like Ervah. 
          Chachamim say that things take effect after Chalitzah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> I (Rebbi) say that this applies only when he 
               intended for Kidushin. If he intended for a regular 
               Ma'amar of a Yevamah, nothing takes effect after 
               Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If a man did Chalitzah, then was 
          Mekadesh her:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he intended for regular Kidushin, she needs a 
               Get. If it was like a Ma'amar to a Yevamah, she does 
               not need a Get;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, in either case she needs a Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> (He said 'you are Mekudeshes to 
          me.') Rebbi holds that we made the Yavam like one (Levi) 
          who digs in the (Hefker) property of a convert (who died 
          without heirs), and Levi thinks that the property is 
          already his, so he does not acquire it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> There, Levi has no intention to 
          acquire. Here, the Yavam intends to acquire her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> A proper analogy is to one who digs in the 
          property of a convert, and thinks he is digging in the 
          property of a different convert (both are Hefker). He 
          acquires!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Rather, he said 'be Mekudeshes to me 
          with this Ma'amar Yevamin':
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi holds that Ma'amar only increases an existing 
               Zikah. Once Chalitzah ended Zikah, the Ma'amar 
               cannot take effect;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim hold that Ma'amar and Zikah are 
               independent of each other. Had he given a Ma'amar 
               Yevamin before Chalitzah, it would have worked. Now 
               also (after Chalitzah), it works!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Had he said 'with this Ma'amar 
          Yevamin', all would agree that it takes effect!
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES 'MA'AMAR' WORK AFTER 'CHALITZAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #3 (Rava):</font></b> The case is, he said 'be Mekudeshes to 
          me with Zikas Yevamin';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi holds that Yesh Zikah. Chalitzah uprooted the 
               Zikah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim hold that Ein Zikah. Just like Kidushin 
               'with Zikas Yevamin' works before Chalitzah, it 
               works after Chalitzah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Sharbiya):</font></b> After a proper Chalitzah, all 
          agree that Kidushin 'with Zikas Yevamin' would not work!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #4 (Rav Sharbiya):</font></b> Rather, they argue about after 
          a Chalitzah Pesulah. Rebbi holds that a Chalitzah Pesulah 
          exempts; Chachamim hold that it does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> All hold that a Chalitzah Pesulah 
          does not exempt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #5 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Rather, they argue about whether 
          or not Chalitzah can be made conditional. Chachamim hold 
          that it can; Rebbi holds that it cannot (the Tenai is 
          Batel, and the Chalitzah is valid in any case.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Ravina):</font></b> All hold that Chalitzah can be made 
          conditional!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #6 (Ravina):</font></b> The case is, Chalitzah was 
          conditional without a Tenai Kaful (he did not explicitly 
          say that if the condition is not fulfilled the Chalitzah 
          will be Batel). Chachamim do not require a Tenai Kaful. 
          Rebbi requires a Tenai Kaful (without it, the Chalitzah 
          works unconditionally).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he did Chalitzah, gave a Ma'amar, or a Get, 
          or had Bi'ah (nothing takes effect after Chalitzah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why doesn't the Mishnah also say that nothing 
          takes effect after Bi'ah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> Indeed, the text should say so (and we 
          know that likewise, nothing takes effect after Chalitzah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Our Tana prefers to teach that nothing takes effect 
               after Chalitzah, since this permits her to marry 
               others. (Tosfos Yeshanim - according to our text, 
               there is no Machlokes Tana'im. Abaye and Rava 
               corrected the text! Rather, the proper text of the 
               Gemara does not cite Abaye and Rava. Rather, the 
               Gemara cites the Tosefta that ends 'nothing takes 
               effect after Bi'ah'.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE CASE OF TWO 'YEVAMOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> This applies when there is one Yavam, whether 
          there is one Yevamah or two.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah is unlike Ben Azai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Ben Azai):</font></b> A Ma'amar takes effect after a 
               Ma'amar when there are two Yevamim and one Yevamah, 
               but not when there are two Yevamos and one Yavam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he gave a Ma'amar (to one Yevamah and did 
          Chalitzah to the other, the former needs a Get).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Our Mishnah supports Shmuel <i>or</i> refutes Rav 
          Yosef!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> If Ba'alas ha'Ma'amar does Chalitzah, the 
               Tzarah is not exempted. (This is why the Mishnah 
               discusses Chalitzah to the Tzarah. Rav Yosef taught 
               that if one Yevamah is Kosher to Kehunah and one is 
               Pasul, one does Chalitzah to the Pesulah. If Shmuel 
               is wrong, Chalitzah of Ba'alas ha'Ma'amar (who 
               becomes Pasul to Kehunah through a Get) would exempt 
               both of them, yet the Mishnah sanctions Chalitzah to 
               the Tzarah, unlike Rav Yosef!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> This is no support or refutation. It does not 
          say that one <i>must</i> (or may) do Chalitzah to the other, 
          rather, <i>if</i> one did!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he gave a Get to each (they need 
          Chalitzah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Our Mishnah supports Rabah bar Rav Huna.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> A Chalitzah Pesulah must be 
               repeated by all the brothers (and likewise, by all 
               the Tzaros).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. <i>They</i> need Chalitzah does not mean both 
          Yevamos in this case. Rather, whenever this case occurs, 
          one of the Yevamos must do Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he gave a Get to one, and Chalitzah to the 
          other...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Our Mishnah supports Shmuel, or refutes Rav 
          Yosef.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shmuel:</font></b> Chalitzah of Ba'alas ha'Get does not exempt 
               her Tzarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> This is no support or refutation. It does not 
          say that one <i>must</i> (or may) do Chalitzah to the other, 
          rather, <i>if</i> one did!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he did Chalitzah to both... (nothing takes 
          effect after Chalitzah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why doesn't it also say that nothing takes 
          effect after Bi'ah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> Indeed, the text should say so! (Tosfos 
          Yeshanim - indeed, the Tosefta says so!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Our Tana prefers to teach that nothing takes effect 
               after Chalitzah, since this permits her to marry 
               others.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> This applies whether there is one Yavam and 
          two Yevamos...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, according to R. Yochanan (who says 
          that after Chalitzah, all the Tzaros are Chayavei Lavin 
          to all the Yevamim), the Mishnah teaches that Ein 
          Kidushin Tofsin b'Chayavei Lavin (like R. Akiva);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But according to Reish Lakish (who says that they 
               are Chayavei Kerisus), must the Mishnah teach that 
               Ein Kidushin Tofsin b'Chayavei Kerisus?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Seifa):</font></b> If one did Yibum and the 
               other gave her a Ma'amar...
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Must the Mishnah teach that one cannot Mekadesh 
                    another man's wife?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer to both questions:</font></b> Since it needed to teach about 
          one Yevamah and one Yavam (all agree that after Chalitzah 
          only a Lav forbids her), it teaches that the same applies 
          to two Yevamos and one Yavam, and due to this it teaches 
          that the same applies to one Yavam and two Yevamim.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'MA'AMAR' WITH THE SECOND YEVAMAH AFTER 'BI'AH' WITH THE FIRST</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that when the Mishnah states, 'Ein Achar Chalitzah Klum,' it also means 'Ein Achar <i>Bi'ah</i> Klum.' In a case in which the Yavam did Bi'ah with the first Yevamah and Ma'amar with the second Yevamah, the Yavam does not need to give a Get to annul the Ma'amar with the second Yevamah. Once Bi'ah is done with one of the Yevamos, nothing done afterwards takes effect.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier (11a) teaches that when a Yavam does Yibum with one of the Yevamos, the remaining Tzaros become prohibited to him with only an Isur Aseh. Since Kidushin takes effect between a man and a woman who are prohibited to each other with only an Isur Aseh, the Ma'amar (which is an act of Kidushin) should take effect with the second Yevamah even after Bi'ah was done with the first!
</p><p>
Even though the Gemara (52b) says that the Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Akiva who maintains that Kidushin does not take effect with a woman who is prohibited to the man with an Isur Lav (and thus Ma'amar does not take effect after Chalitzah is done because of the Isur Lav which prohibits the Yavam to the Tzarah of the woman who did Chalitzah), Rebbi Akiva should agree that in the case of Ma'amar after Bi'ah, the Ma'amar <i>should</i> take effect. Since, after doing Bi'ah with the first Yevamah, there is only an Isur <i>Aseh</i> against marrying the second Yevamah, Ma'amar with the second Yevamah should take effect.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) According to one opinion in Kesuvos (29b), Rebbi Akiva maintains that Kidushin does not take effect for <i>any</i> forbidden union, even with an Isur Aseh. Hence, when the Gemara here says that the Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Akiva, it means that Kidushin does not take effect even with an Isur Aseh. (See <b>ROSH</b> 5:6.)
</p><p>
(b) However, the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (11a), the <b>RAMBAN</b> in Kesuvos (29b) and other Rishonim there cite this Gemara as proof that the Tzarah of one's Yevamah is prohibited not only with an Isur Aseh but also with an Isur Lo Ta'aseh. That Isur is the prohibition of 'Lo Yivneh,' a Lo Ta'aseh which states that 'Keivan she'Banah, Shuv Lo Yivneh' ('since he has built one house through Yibum, he may not build another one'), and it is not an Isur Aseh ('Bayis Echad Hu Boneh, v'Eino Boneh Shnei Batim' -- 'he must build one house through Yibum, and not two'). Since the Yavam did Yibum with one Yevamah and not the other, it was as if he sent away the other one with Chalitzah.
</p><p>
Although the Gemara (44a) seems to support Rashi's view that the Isur of Bi'ah with two Yevamos is an Isur Aseh ('Bayis Echad Hu Boneh'), the <b>ME'IRI</b> (11a) explains that the Gemara does not mean to say that this verse is the source for the Isur. Rather, the Gemara's intention is merely to explain what the Isur is. The source for the Isur is the Lo Ta'aseh of 'Lo Yivneh.'
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WE DID NOT DECREE AFTER 'CHALITZAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he did Chalitzah, gave a Ma'amar or a 
          Get... (nothing takes effect after Chalitzah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, if he did Chalitzah and gave a 
          Ma'amar, it must teach that we do not decree (to require 
          a Get for) a Ma'amar after Chalitzah due to a Ma'amar 
          before Chalitzah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But why must it teach that a Get after Chalitzah 
               does nothing?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Seifa):</font></b> If he did Yibum and gave a 
               Ma'amar, or did Yibum and gave a Get...
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Granted, if he did Yibum and gave a Get, it 
                    must teach that we do not decree (to require 
                    Chalitzah after) a Get after Yibum due to a Get 
                    before Yibum. But why must it teach that a 
                    Ma'amar after Yibum does nothing?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> You must say that since we taught about 
               Ma'amar after Chalitzah, we also taught about 
               Ma'amar after Yibum;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Likewise, since we had to teach about Get after 
          Yibum, we also taught about Get after Chalitzah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (Whether Chalitzah is at the beginning, middle 
          or end, nothing takes effect after it.) Things takes 
          effect after Bi'ah if it is in the middle or at the end.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah is unlike Aba Yosi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Aba Yosi ben Yochanan):</font></b> Bi'ah is like 
               Chalitzah. At the beginning, nothing takes effect 
               after them. In the middle or end, things take effect 
               after them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  There are three opinions among the Tana'im.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first Tana of the Mishnah holds that we decree 
               only after (Pasul) Yibum, since then there is a 
               concern;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Nechemyah holds that also regarding Bi'ah there 
               is no need to decree.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Above we said that we decree about Yibum after 
                    a Get due to Yibum after Chalitzah. R. 
                    Nechemyah holds that since Chalitzah is 
                    mid'Oraisa, people know that Yibum cannot come 
                    later.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Above we said that we decree about Yibum after 
                    a Ma'amar due to Bi'ah after Bi'ah. R. 
                    Nechemyah holds that since Yibum is mid'Oraisa, 
                    people know that another Yibum cannot be done.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Aba Yosi holds like Chachamim who decree about 
               Bi'ah, and he decrees about Chalitzah due to Bi'ah.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***<b>PEREK HA'BA <b><b>AL</b></b> YEVIMTO</b>***
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT KINDS OF 'BI'AH' ACQUIRE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Yavam had Bi'ah with his Yevamah he 
          acquired her, whether he was Shogeg or Mezid (intending), 
          whether forced or willing, even if he was Shogeg and she 
          was Mezidah, or vice-versa, or he was forced and she was 
          not, or vice-versa;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  This is whether he did only Ha'ara'ah (the first stage of 
          Bi'ah) or the full act. We do not distinguish different 
          types of Bi'ah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Similarly, if one had Bi'ah with any Ervah in the Torah, 
          e.g. a Kohen Gadol with a widow, a regular Kohen with a 
          Chalutzah, a Yisrael with a Mamzeres or Nesinah or 
          vice-versa, she is disqualified. We do not distinguish 
          between different kinds of Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> Why does it say 'even (if he was Shogeg)'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He acquires her not only when he is Shogeg or 
          Mezid (intending for Zenus) and she intends for the 
          Mitzvah, rather, even when he is Shogeg and she is 
          Mezidah, and neither intends for the Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Chiya):</font></b> Even if both are Shogegim, Mezidim, 
          or forced (he acquires her).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In the Mishnah, what is the case of being 
          forced?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Nochrim forced him to have Bi'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Rava taught that a man is never 
               considered forced regarding Arayos, since Kishuy (an 
               erection) comes only willfully!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) UNNECESSARY CASES IN THE MISHNAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara questions the Mishnah which states 'Ein Achar Chalitzah Klum' with regard to one who gives a Get after he does Chalitzah. The Gemara asks that the Get obviously is ineffective, because Chalitzah was already done.
</p><p>
The Gemara responds, 'And according to you (ul'Ta'ameich) -- how do you understand the end of the Mishnah which says that when Ma'amar was done after Bi'ah, nothing is needed to annul the Ma'amar?' When Yibum (Bi'ah) was already done, Ma'amar obviously is ineffective!
</p><p>
The words of the Gemara are difficult to understand. If the Gemara is questioning the Mishnah's inclusion of the case of 'Chalatz v'Nasan Get' and the case of 'Ba'al v'Asah Ma'amar,' why does it question the Mishnah at this point, when it discusses the end of the Mishnah? Those cases appear in the first part of the Mishnah (as Rashi on the Mishnah explains), and thus the Gemara should ask these questions earlier, when it explains the first part of the Mishnah. (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that the Gemara at this point does not initiate a new discussion on the Mishnah. Rather, it is a continuation of the previous discussion. (Accordingly, the colon should be deleted from the text of the Gemara. There should be no separation mark between this Sugya and the previous one.) The preceding Gemara records a dispute between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about the status of the prohibition of the other brothers to the Yevamah with whom one brother did Chalitzah. Rebbi Yochanan says that she is prohibited to them with a Lav, and Reish Lakish says that she is prohibited to them with Kares.
</p><p>
The Gemara attempts to prove the view of Rebbi Yochanan from the Mishnah. The Mishnah adds that the law of 'Ein Achar Chalitzah Klum' applies to a case of two Yevamos. According to Reish Lakish, there is no reason for the Mishnah to mention this; it is obvious that the Yavam who did Chalitzah with one of the Yevamos is Asur b'Kares to the others, and thus anything he subsequently does with the others (such as Ma'amar) will not take effect. According to Rebbi Yochanan, however, the Mishnah needs to mention this case in order to teach that although the Tzaros are prohibited to him with only an Isur Lav, nothing takes effect with them. (The Mishnah expresses the view of Rebbi Akiva who maintains that Kidushin does not take effect with an Isur Lav.)
</p><p>
Reish Lakish responds that the Mishnah indeed does not need to mention that 'Ein Achar Chalitzah Klum' applies to a case of two Yevamos. It mentions this case only to maintain parallel structure with the first part of the Mishnah, which mentions all of the possible scenarios in each case (with one Yevamah and with two Yevamos). Reish Lakish asserts that even according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Mishnah may include a case only for the sake of consistency. According to Rebbi Yochanan, there is no reason for the Mishnah to mention that Ma'amar does not work after Bi'ah in a case of two Yevamim who do Bi'ah and then Ma'amar with one Yevamah. When the second Yavam does Ma'amar, the woman is already an 'Eshes Ish,' and obviously the Ma'amar cannot take effect. It must be that the Mishnah mentions that case only for consistency. Similarly, the Mishnah mentions the case of Ma'amar after Chalitzah only for consistency.
</p><p>
The Gemara continues with another attempt to prove the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan. The Gemara says that even in the first part of the Mishnah, which discusses cases of one Yavam with one Yevamah, the Mishnah mentions an obvious law -- 'Chalatz v'Nasan Get,' a Get does not take effect after Chalitzah. According to Reish Lakish, who says that all of the cases are mentioned only because of the first case of one Yavam with one Yevamah, there is no reason for the Mishnah to mention 'Chalatz v'Nasan Get' with one Yevamah if it does not teach anything new. According to Rebbi Yochanan, however, who maintains that the Mishnah needs to teach that the law of 'Chalatz v'Nasan Get' applies to a case of two Yevamos, the Mishnah mentions 'Chalatz v'Nasan Get' in the case of one Yevamah as well in order to maintain consistency with the second part of the Mishnah.
</p><p>
Reish Lakish responds that 'even according to you, Rebbi Yochanan, what is the point of mentioning the law of 'Ba'al v'Asah Ma'amar' in the case of one Yavam with one Yevamah?' Even according to Rebbi Yochanan, there is no need for the Mishnah to teach that law in the case of one Yevamah <i>or</i> in the case of two Yevamos! The Gemara answers that the Mishnah nevertheless mentions that case in order to parallel the scenario of 'Chalatz v'Asah Ma'amar,' which the Mishnah <i>does</i> need to mention.
</p><p>


