# dafyomi

lvr: 31
dfh: b
sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) A 'CHALITZAH PESULAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav rules that when three sisters fall to Yibum to two brothers, one brother does Chalitzah with one sister, the other brother does Chalitzah with the second sister, and then both brothers must do Chalitzah with the third sister.
</p><p>
The Gemara infers from this ruling that Chalitzah with one's 'Achos Chalutzaso' (the sister of a woman with whom he did Chalitzah) is considered a 'Chalitzah Pesulah,' and whenever a Chalitzah Pesulah is performed it must be done by all of the brothers in order to take effect and release the woman from the requirement of Yibum (because the bond of Zikah is too strong to be broken by a Chalitzah Pesulah).
</p><p>
A 'Chalitzah Pesulah' is defined as a Chalitzah done by a brother who was not permitted to do Yibum. In Rav's case, the Chalitzah done with the third sister is a Chalitzah Pesulah because neither brother was permitted to do Yibum with her due to the Isur of 'Achos Chalutzaso' (she is the sister of the women with whom each brother did Chalitzah).
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> cites an alternative Girsa in the Gemara (which he rejects). According to that Girsa, the Gemara infers from the <i>beginning</i> of the Beraisa that a Chalitzah Pesulah must be done by all of the brothers. The beginning of the Beraisa says that each brother does Chalitzah with one sister. Why may one brother not do Chalitzah with all of the sisters? It must be that once he does Chalitzah with one sister, all of the other sisters become prohibited to him because of 'Achos Chalutzaso' (and, therefore, in order to release them from the bond of Zikah they need Chalitzah either from another brother who can do Yibum with them, or Chalitzah Pesulah from all of the brothers).
</p><p>
Why does Rashi reject that Girsa? The Gemara, according to that Girsa, seems to be no less of a valid proof that a Chalitzah Pesulah must be repeated by all of the brothers in order to release the Yevamah.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH mid'Ka'amrit), the <b>RAMBAN</b>, and other Rishonim explain that the second sister certainly needs to do Chalitzah with the second brother, even if a Chalitzah Pesulah does not need to be done by all of the brothers. This is because the second sister <i>can</i> do a perfectly valid Chalitzah with someone who is permitted to do Yibum with her -- the second brother. Everyone agrees that when she can do either a perfectly valid Chalitzah or a Chalitzah Pesulah, she must do the better Chalitzah. (As the Gemara teaches on 27a, if it is possible to do a good Chalitzah, then one may not do a Chalitzah Pesulah.) Therefore, the Gemara derives its proof from the third sister. Since none of the brothers can do a proper Chalitzah with her, she must do a Chalitzah Pesulah with all of the brothers.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: DIVORCE AFTER TEN YEARS OF CHILDLESSNESS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara concludes that even nowadays the law of the Mishnah remains in effect. If a couple has been married for ten years and has had no children, the man should divorce his wife and marry another woman in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah.
</p><p>
Does this Halachah require that Beis Din force a man to divorce his wife after ten years of childlessness, or is it merely an obligation upon the husband himself to take the initiative to divorce his wife on his own accord, and Beis Din does not get involved? This question is the subject of debate among the Amora'im in Kesuvos (77a) and is also the topic of discussion among the Rishonim here. 
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (65b, DH Hu and DH Hi) writes that Beis Din must force a man to divorce his wife (and marry someone else) in order to have him fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. This is also the ruling of the <b>RIF</b> and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 15:7) who write that Beis Din compels him to divorce her even if Beis Din must use physical force. (The <b>ROSH</b> (6:15-16) adds that Beis Din also forces him to marry another wife, because otherwise there would be no point in forcing him to divorce the first one. Similarly, Beis Din is enjoined to force, at a certain point, a bachelor who refuses to get married.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Yotzi) and <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> rule, based on the <b>YERUSHALMI</b> (Kesuvos 11:7), that Beis Din does not force the man to divorce his wife. Rather, Beis Din tells him that he is obligated to divorce his wife and that if he does not, the people will be permitted to call him a sinner. 
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b>
<br>(a) Who exactly does the Gemara require to divorce his wife and marry another woman after ten years of childlessness?
</p><p>
1. The Poskim cite the Yerushalmi which states that the Gemara's ruling applies not only to one who had no children or who had stillborns, but even to one who <i>had</i> children but they died and he no longer has any living children (or grandchildren). He, too, must divorce his wife if ten years have passed and they have not had more children.
</p><p>
2. The Mishnah states that this Halachah applies when ten years pass 'without giving birth.' The <b>RAMBAN</b> and other Rishonim infer from these words that if a man's wife bore him a single child, he is not required to divorce her, even though he has not fulfilled the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah with the birth of a single child. The <b>REMA</b> records this ruling as the Halachah in practice. The <b>PISCHEI TESHUVAH</b> adds in the name of the <b>ME'IL TZEDAKAH</b> (#93) that even if the wife is no longer capable of bearing children and they will never have a second child, Beis Din still does not force him to marry another wife.
</p><p>
(b) There are several opinions with regard to the practical application of this Halachah.
</p><p>
1. The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 154:10) cites the <b>RIF</b> and <b>RAMBAM</b> who rule that Beis Din forces the man to divorce his wife after ten years of childlessness. Other Poskim, however, limit -- or entirely eliminate -- this practice:
</p><p>
2. <b>RASHI</b>, the <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b>, and others rule that this Halachah applies only in Eretz Yisrael and not in Chutz la'Aretz (see previous Insight).
</p><p>
3. The Hagahos Maimoniyos (Hilchos Ishus 15:4) adds in the name of the <b>AVI'ASAF</b> that nowadays even in Eretz Yisrael Beis Din may not force a man to divorce his wife after ten years of childlessness. The Gemara in Bava Basra (60b) relates that the Chachamim considered enacting a prohibition against marriage when the nations began to persecute the Jewish people. They reasoned that it is better for the Jews to cause their own end by not having children than to be destroyed by their enemies. The Chachamim, however, decided against such an enactment on the grounds that it would have been too difficult for the people to observe. Nevertheless, the very proposition of such an enactment shows that nowadays Beis Din is not required to force a person to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah.
</p><p>
4. The <b>REMA</b> (EH 154:10) concludes that nowadays it is not the practice of Beis Din to use force (in this matter and in any matters of Ishus). Should, however, the man himself voluntarily divorce his wife l'Chatchilah?
</p><p>
The <b>PISCHEI TESHUVAH</b> cites the <b>SEFER BIGDEI KEHUNAH</b> (#1) who rules that if a man's wife is G-d-fearing and they are happily married, they may remain married even l'Chatchilah and rely on the opinions which maintain that in Chutz la'Aretz one does not need to divorce his wife. He may also remain with his wife based on the logic that he does not know for certain that the source of the problem is his own inability to bear children (and thus divorcing her and marrying another will not help).
</p><p>
<b>RAV MOSHE STERNBUCH</b> shlit'a (<b>TESHUVOS V'HANHAGOS</b> 1:790) points out that this was the practice of many great Torah scholars who, unfortunately, were unable to have children. Rav Sternbuch adds that even when the man and his wife live in Eretz Yisrael, it is impossible to know for certain that it is not one's sins which cause him not to have children, as we are all so sullied with sin. (In his responsum, Rav Sternbuch describes a number of Segulos which he recommends for couples trying to have children.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ARAYOS' THAT UPROOT 'YIBUM' AND 'CHALITZAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (Normally, if Reuven died without children, 
          one of his brothers must do Yibum (Levirate marriage) or 
          Chalitzah with one of the widows). If a widow (Esther) is 
          forbidden to a brother (Shimon) by one of the 15 Arayos 
          (forbidden incestuous relationships) listed below, she 
          and all her Tzaros (co-wives) are exempt from (and cannot 
          do) Yibum or Chalitzah with him. (If there is no brother 
          with whom they can do Yibum or Chalitzah, they are 
          permitted to marry strangers.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If Levi (another brother) did Yibum with Miryam (a Tzarah 
          of Esther) and then he died (childless), all Levi's 
          widows are exempt from Yibum or Chalitzah with Shimon. 
          (Miryam's Tzaros are Tzaros of the Tzarah of Esther.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The same applies if another brother then did Yibum with a 
          widow of Levi and then died childless, ad infinitum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The 15 Arayos are:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Shimon's daughter;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The daughter of his daughter;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The daughter of his son;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> The daughter of Shimon's wife;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> The daughter of the son of his wife;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> The daughter of the daughter of his wife;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> His mother-in-law;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b></b> The mother of his mother-in-law
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b></b> The mother of his father-in-law.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b> His maternal sister.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b></b> His mother's sister;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b></b> His wife's sister;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b></b> The wife of his maternal brother;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'YIBUM' WITH ONE'S MOTHER-IN-LAW</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah discusses fifteen cases in which a man ('Shimon') has a brother ('Reuven') whose wife ('Rachel') is forbidden to him as an Ervah (such as his daughter). The Mishnah teaches that if Reuven dies without children, Shimon may <i>not</i> perform Yibum or Chalitzah with Rachel. Similarly, he may not perform Yibum or Chalitzah with any other wife of Reuven, because she is the 'Tzarah' ('co-wife') of a woman who is an Ervah to Shimon.
</p><p>
The Mishnah lists fifteen different cases in which Reuven is married to a woman who is forbidden as an Ervah to Shimon. In each case, <b>RASHI</b> explains how it is possible for the woman to be an Ervah to Shimon but not to his brother, Reuven. In the case of 'Chamoso,' Shimon's mother-in-law (Shimon's wife's mother, who is an Ervah to Shimon), Rashi explains that Reuven married Shimon's mother-in-law after her first husband died. That is how she came to be married to Reuven (her daughter's husband's brother).
</p><p>
There is a far more obvious explanation for how Reuven could be married to the mother-in-law of his brother, Shimon. Shimon simply married his niece, Reuven's daughter, in which case Shimon's mother-in-law is Reuven's wife. Hence, when Reuven dies, Shimon may not perform Yibum with her because she is an Ervah to him. Why does Rashi not give this simple explanation for how Reuven can be married to his brother's mother-in-law? (<b>MAHARAM</b>) 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RIVASH</b> (#374), <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>, and others explain that Rashi here follows his own opinion as expressed elsewhere. The Gemara later in Yevamos (94b) records a dispute between Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva with regard to the prohibition against marrying one's mother-in-law (Chamoso). According to Rava's understanding of the dispute, Rebbi Akiva rules that the punishment for marrying one's mother-in-law (Sereifah) does <i>not</i> apply to one who marries her <i>after</i> the death of his wife. Rebbi Yishmael argues and rules that the punishment still applies in such a case. <b>TOSFOS</b> there asserts that their dispute involves only whether or not the punishment of Sereifah applies; everyone agrees that a Lo Ta'aseh still prohibits one from marrying his wife's mother even after the death of his wife.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> in Sanhedrin (76b), however, writes that according to Rebbi Akiva <i>no</i> Isur Kares or Lo Ta'aseh prohibits one from marrying his wife's mother after the death of his wife. His wife's mother is only 'Asur b'Arur' to him -- the Torah places a curse on a man who marries his mother-in-law; no explicit Torah prohibition forbids it. Accordingly, since his mother-in-law is not an actual Ervah to him, in a case in which she was married to his brother who died with no children, she is not exempt from Yibum and she does not exempt her Tzarah from Yibum.
</p><p>
In all of the cases of the Mishnah, Reuven died with no children. In the case of 'Chamoso,' Reuven's wife, Rachel, is the mother of Shimon's wife, which means that Shimon is married to the daughter of Reuven. In such a case, however, the only possible way for Rachel to fall to Shimon for Yibum is if Reuven's daughter -- Shimon's wife -- is dead (because if she is alive, Reuven has a child and there is no obligation for his wife to perform Yibum). However, if Shimon's wife is dead, his mother-in-law is no longer forbidden to him as an Ervah but only 'b'Arur,' and thus she must perform Yibum or Chalitzah with Shimon before she may remarry (and she does not exempt her Tzarah from Yibum)!
</p><p>
For this reason, Rashi explains that the Mishnah's case of 'Chamoso' refers to when Reuven, the brother who died, had married the mother-in-law of Shimon, the surviving brother, after her husband (the father of Shimon's wife) died.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b></b> Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo (the widow of a 
               brother of Shimon who died before Shimon was born).
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b></b> Shimon's daughter-in-law.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If any of these died, did Mi'un (annulled a mid'Rabanan 
          marriage), was divorced, or was found to be an Ailonis (a 
          girl that does not develop like a normal female), the 
          Tzaros are permitted (i.e. obligated to do Yibum or 
          Chalitzah with Shimon or another brother).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Mi'un and being found to be an Ailonis do not apply 
               to the mother and grandmothers of Shimon's wife. 
               (Mi'un must be before adulthood, and a minor cannot 
               gave birth. An Ailonis is sterile.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXEMPTING THE 'TZAROS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Continuation of Mishnah):</font></b> We illustrate the case of 
          Tzaros of a Tzarah. If Shimon's daughter (or any of the 
          other 14 Arayos) Esther was married to Reuven, and Reuven 
          died, just like Esther is exempt (from Yibum with 
          Shimon), so is her Tzarah (Miryam).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If Miryam married (i.e. did Yibum) with Levi, the husband 
          of Tamar, and Levi died, just like Miryam is exempt from 
          Yibum with Shimon, so is Tamar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  This applies even 100 times (a widow does Yibum, and the 
          Yavam dies, his other wives are exempt from Yibum with 
          Shimon).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah said that if she died, the Tzaros 
          are permitted. What is the case?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shimon's daughter (or another Ervah) Esther was 
          married to Reuven, who had another wife Miryam. If 
          Shimon's daughter died or was divorced, and then Reuven 
          died, Reuven's other wife may do Yibum with Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If Shimon's daughter could have done Mi'un but didn't, 
          the Tzarah may do Chalitzah (with Shimon) but not Yibum 
          (with him).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ORDER OF THE 'MISHNAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> (Later in our Sugya) we learn all 
          Arayos in the Mishnah from Achos Ishto (his wife's 
          sister). That case should have been taught first!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the Mishnah lists the most 
               severe cases first.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We would have to say that the Tana holds like 
                    R. Shimon, who says that Sereifah (death by 
                    burning) is harsher than stoning.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection #1:</font></b> If so, the Tana should have taught 
               Chamoso (his mother-in-law) first, for the Torah 
               writes Sereifah regarding Chamoso, and from it we 
               learn Sereifah for other Arayos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection #2:</font></b> If so, his daughter-in-law should 
               follow Chamoso, since (R. Shimon holds that) stoning 
               is the harshest punishment next to burning!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Bito (his daughter) was taught first, because 
          it is not explicit in the Torah. The Tana needed to 
          expound it, therefore he prefers it.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ORDER OF THE 'MISHNAH' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We must expound to learn about all the Arayos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Granted, we must expound to learn about Yibum 
          (that they are exempt and that they exempt the Tzarah), 
          but the Isur (even not in a situation of Yibum) of the 
          other Arayos is explicit;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Isur of Bito is known only through expounding.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> We learn the Isur of Bito through 
                    (Gezeirah Shavah,) 'Henah-Henah' and 
                    'Zimah-Zimah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If the Tana prefers what is learned by 
          expounding, the case of Achos Ishto (for which the law of 
          Yibum is most explicit) should be taught last!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Once the Tana started listing sisters, he also 
          taught Achos Ishto.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, let him teach sisters at the end!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to question 3a, Daf 2b):</font></b> Rather, we teach the 
          closest relatives first.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> First we teach about the Yavam's own relatives, i.e. 
               Bito, his daughter's daughter and his son's 
               daughter;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> After teaching about three generations below him, we 
               teach about three generations below his wife;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> After three generations below his wife, we teach 
               about three generations above his wife.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> We then teach about his sister and maternal aunt, 
               which are his own relatives.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Once we discuss sisters, we teach about Achos Ishto.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It would have been proper to teach about his 
                    daughter-in-law before Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah 
                    b'Olamo, since the latter is not forbidden 
                    because of her closeness to Shimon.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> However, once we list fraternal Isurim, we 
                    include Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE EXEMPTION FROM 'YIBUM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did the Tana say that, she exempts her 
          Tzaros from Yibum and Chalitzah? She forbids her Tzaros!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Had he said that she forbids Yibum, we would 
          have thought that Chalitzah is required.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> He could have said that she (also) forbids 
          Chalitzah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why should Chalitzah be forbidden (even if 
               it is not needed)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> If we allow Chalitzah (when it is 
               unnecessary and Yibum is permitted), perhaps people 
               will come to do Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Since the Tzarah is forbidden only regarding 
          Yibum, but is permitted when there is no Mitzvah, we 
          taught 'she exempts'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why must it say that she exempts from Chalitzah 
          and Yibum? It suffices to say that she exempts from 
          Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If so, we would have thought that she does 
          Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, it teaches that whoever is obligated to do 
               Yibum may do Chalitzah (instead), and whoever may 
               not do Yibum does not do Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah should (list the primary Mitzvah 
          first and) say that she exempts from Yibum and Chalitzah. 
          Alternatively, it should just say that she exempts from 
          Chalitzah (and obviously, from Yibum)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah is like Aba Sha'ul, who says that 
          Chalitzah is preferable to Yibum.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CASES EXCLUDED FROM THE 'MISHNAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Twice, the Mishnah says that there are 15 
          cases. What other possibilities does it come to exclude?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SOURCE FOR THE PROHIBITION AGAINST 'YIBUM' WITH THE 'TZARAH' OF A 'TZARAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa teaches the source for the prohibition against performing Yibum with the Tzarah of 'Achos Ishto' (the sister of one's wife). The Beraisa states that the prohibition is derived from the extra phrase in the verse, 'Lo Sikach <i>li'Tzror</i>' -- '[A woman and her sister] you shall not marry <i>to cause them to quarrel</i>' (Vayikra 18:18). The additional phrase 'li'Tzror' in the verse teaches that one may not marry the Tzarah of a woman who is an Ervah to him even in a situation of Yibum (as derived from the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Aleha').
</p><p>
The Beraisa inquires about the source for the prohibition against marrying the Tzarah of a Tzarah of an Ervah. The Beraisa answers that the source is the verse's usage of the word 'li'Tzror' and not 'la'Tzur' (with one Reish).
</p><p>
Why does the Beraisa need to derive the prohibition against marrying the Tzarah of a Tzarah from a verse? Once the Torah prohibits the Tzarah herself from doing Yibum (because she is the Tzarah of an Ervah), she remains forbidden to her husband's brothers because of the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' (the wife of one's brother). Accordingly, her status is the same as that of any other <i>Ervah</i>, and her Tzarah should be no different from any Tzarah of an Ervah.
</p><p>
Although the Isur Ervah in this case is that of 'Eshes Ach' which normally is suspended in a situation of Yibum, the Mishnah teaches in another case ('Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo') that the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is able to prohibit the woman to the brother with whom she otherwise would have performed Yibum, and the Gemara does not find it necessary to seek a source for this. In that case, a brother born <i>after</i> the death of his older (and childless) brother may <i>not</i> perform Yibum, because he was 'not in the world at the same time' as his brother and thus his brother's wife remains forbidden to him as an 'Eshes Ach.' Similarly, her Tzarah is also forbidden to him because she is the Tzarah of an Ervah. Just as the Gemara needs no source for the prohibition of the Tzarah of an Ervah in this case, it should need no source for the prohibition of the Tzarah of a Tzarah. In fact, <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Eshes Achiv) compares the exemption from Yibum of the Tzarah of a Tzarah to the exemption of Tzaras 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.' Why, then, does the Gemara seek a scriptural source for this prohibition?
</p><p>
Moreover, when Rashi later (8b) discusses the opinion of Rebbi -- who finds another source for the exemption of a Tzarah from Yibum but gives no source for the exemption of the Tzarah of a Tzarah -- he says that Rebbi does not need a verse to teach that the Tzarah of a Tzarah does not perform Yibum 'because she is the Tzarah of an Eshes Ach' (DH Im Ken)! Why does the Gemara here need to prove from a verse that the Tzarah of a Tzarah is exempt from Yibum? (<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Gemara itself cites an opinion which concurs with Rebbi Akiva Eiger's question and maintains that no verse is needed to teach that the Tzarah of a Tzarah may not perform Yibum. The Gemara (13a) asks, 'How do we know [that the Tzarah of a Tzarah does not perform Yibum]? Rav Yehudah says that we learn it from the word 'li'Tzror.' Rav Ashi says that it is logical [and no verse is needed].' Rav Ashi clearly follows the logic which underlies Rebbi Akiva Eiger's question.
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Gemara there seek a source for the prohibition of Yibum with the Tzarah of a Tzarah when the Beraisa here (3b) clearly states that the source is the verse 'li'Tzror'? Moreover, what permits Rav Ashi, an Amora, to argue with the Beraisa and suggest a different source for the prohibition?
</p><p>
The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Hagahos) points out that the text of the Gemara of many Rishonim does not include the Beraisa's statement about the Tzarah of a Tzarah. According to their Girsa, there clearly is no question on the Beraisa or on the words of Rav Ashi, since neither one says that a verse is needed to teach the prohibition of Yibum with the Tzarah of a Tzarah. Rather, the question is on the view of Rav Yehudah: why does he argue with Rav Ashi and suggest a scriptural source for the prohibition?
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> (13a) writes that Rav Yehudah agrees with Rav Ashi that no verse is needed to teach this prohibition. He mentions the verse only as a scriptural support for the logic which prohibits the Tzarah of a Tzarah (like an 'Asmachta'). Rav Ashi merely <i>explains</i> what Rav Yehudah actually means; he does not argue at all. Hence, Rebbi Akiva Eiger's question poses no difficulty, even according to Rav Yehudah.
</p><p>
However, many other Rishonim do not agree with the Ritva's approach. Rashi here (3b, DH li'Tzror, and 2b, DH Kach Tzaras Tzarasah) clearly understands that Rav Yehudah derives the prohibition from the verse and not from logic.
</p><p>
In addition, <b>TOSFOS</b> (2a, DH Ad Sof) explains that the text of the Beraisa <i>should</i> include the words about the Tzarah of a Tzarah, and that both Rav Yehudah and Rav Ashi agree that the source for the prohibition of Yibum with the Tzarah of a Tzarah is the verse of 'li'Tzror.' The dispute later (13a) is only whether or not the prohibition of the secondary Tzaros applies ad infinitum ('Ad Sof ha'Olam'); the prohibition of Yibum with those additional Tzaros is derived from logic (Rav Ashi) or from a verse (Rav Yehudah). According to Tosfos, Rebbi Akiva Eiger's question applies to both Rav Yehudah and Rav Ashi. Why do the Amora'im require a verse to teach the prohibition of Yibum with the Tzarah of a Tzarah?
</p><p>
(b) The verse does not teach that the Tzarah of the Ervah does not fall to Yibum at all and has no 'Zikas Yibum' whatsoever. Rather, it teaches only that the brother may not do Yibum with the Tzarah, and that she is prohibited to him with a punishment of Kares (8a). Whenever an Isur Kares stands in the way of performing Yibum, Chalitzah is also prohibited, as the Gemara later (20a) mentions (see also Rashi 2b, DH v'Eshes Achiv). Hence, the brother may perform neither Yibum nor Chalitzah with the Tzarah of the Ervah.
</p><p>
If he is the only surviving brother, there is no Zikah of Yibum whatsoever (for, otherwise, the Tzarah would never be able to remarry, because she is Zekukah to Yibum but cannot do Yibum or Chalitzah). Rather, since the brother is unable to perform either act, there is no Zikah and the woman may remarry.
</p><p>
However, when there are other surviving brothers, perhaps the Zikah takes effect on the entire household as a whole; once she is Zekukah to some of the brothers, she is also Zekukah to all of them. One brother -- the one to whom this woman is an Ervah or the Tzarah of an Ervah -- is unable to remove the Zikah by performing Yibum or Chalitzah. Any of the other brothers, however, <i>may</i> perform Yibum or Chalitzah and thereby remove the Zikah from the entire household -- and also remove the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' for all of the brothers. Just as he removes the Zikah from the other brothers, he also removes the Zikah from the brother who could not do Yibum. Since the Tzarah of the Ervah was Zekukah to that brother, she will <i>not</i> become prohibited to him with the Isur of 'Eshes Ach.' She will be like any other woman who is able to fall to Yibum more than once (such as when the first brother who married her died childless, and then the second brother who married her through Yibum died childless, and so on). (In other words, this woman is considered to be an 'Eshes Ach b'Makom Mitzvah,' in which case the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' does <i>not</i> stand in the way of doing Yibum.) 
</p><p>
Accordingly, the verse is needed to teach that the Tzarah of a Tzarah is prohibited and that there is no Zikah whatsoever (for the Ervah or for the Tzarah) to the brother who is related to them as an Ervah.
</p><p>
This differs from the case of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.' In that case, no verse is needed to teach that there is no Zikah to the brother who is born after his older brother died. No verse is needed because the verses of Yibum in the Torah refer only to when the brothers were in the world together, and not to when one brother was born after the first brother died. It is obvious that the younger brother is not included in the Zikah of Yibum.
</p><p>
In contrast, in the case of the Tzarah of an Ervah, the verses of Yibum make no mention of any exclusion of the Tzarah from Yibum. Instead, a different verse ('li'Tzror,' which is not in the Parshah of Yibum) teaches that the Tzarah is excluded from Yibum. Since her exclusion is derived from a different source, there are grounds to doubt whether the verse of 'li'Tzror' teaches that she is entirely excluded from the Parshah of Yibum (and thus she is excluded from Zikah), or whether it teaches that although she <i>is</i> included in the Parshah of Yibum, she is not able to perform Yibum or Chalitzah (but she nevertheless has Zikah for Yibum).
</p><p>
The same explanation may be suggested according to Rebbi (8b). Rebbi maintains that the verse which teaches that the Tzarah of an Ervah may not do Yibum is in the Parshah of Yibum itself. Since the verse excludes her from the Mitzvah of Yibum, it clearly excludes her from any Zikah as well, and thus, according to Rebbi, no other verse is necessary to exempt the Tzarah of a Tzarah from Yibum.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'YIBUM' FOR A NIDAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa derives from the verse which teaches the prohibition (Azharah) against marrying 'Achos Ishto' (the sister of one's wife) that one is also prohibited from performing Yibum with the Tzarah of an Ervah, and one who performs Yibum with her is punished with Kares. Just as one may not perform Yibum with the Ervah of 'Achos Ishto' (and doing so carries the punishment of Kares), so, too, one may not perform Yibum with the Tzarah of 'Achos Ishto.'
</p><p>
The Gemara says that the Azharah against Yibum with an Ervah or with the Tzarah of an Ervah is derived through a Binyan Av from the Azharah against Yibum with 'Achos Ishto' and her Tzarah. This Binyan Av also teaches that the prohibition is punishable with Malkus and with Kares.
</p><p>
How, though, can the Gemara derive a punishment through a Binyan Av? There is a rule that 'Ein Onshin Min ha'Din' -- a punishment for a transgression cannot be administered on the basis of an exegetical derivation of a 'Kal v'Chomer' (Makos 5b) or 'Binyan Av' (see <b>RAN</b> to Nedarim 4b, DH Teisi). (<b>MELO HA'RO'IM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH me'Achos Ishah) points out that the Gemara does not rely on the Binyan Av when it says that the Azharah against Yibum with the other Arayos and their Tzaros is derived from the Azharah of 'Achos Ishto,' because there are refutations (Pirchos) which prevent deriving some of them from the Binyan Av. Rather, the Beraisa means that there is a <i>Hekesh</i> which links all of the Arayos with each other, as the Gemara later (8a) concludes, and thus all are derived through a Hekesh from 'Achos Ishto.' A Hekesh is not subject to the restriction of 'Ein Onshin Min ha'Din.'
</p><p>
The <b>MELO HA'RO'IM</b> challenges this answer. If there is a Hekesh which compares all of the Arayos with each other, then why is the prohibition of the Tzarah of an Ervah limited to the fifteen Arayos mentioned in the Mishnah? The Hekesh should extend the prohibition of Tzarah to the other six, more severe, forms of Arayos! Indeed, the Gemara later (54b) clearly maintains that the Hekesh applies to <i>all</i> of the Arayos. Accordingly, any Halachah which applies to the fifteen Arayos mentioned in the Mishnah should also apply to the six severe Arayos.
</p><p>
Moreover, the Hekesh should teach that Yibum does <i>not</i> apply to a woman who is a Nidah. Since a Nidah is an Ervah (the transgression of living with a Nidah is punishable with Kares), she should be included in the Hekesh (as the Gemara itself says later with regard to other laws). Even if there are reasons to say that a Nidah is more lenient than the other Arayos, 'Ein Meshivin Al ha'Hekesh' -- the Hekesh should apply nevertheless. (For example, <b>TOSFOS</b> (2a, DH v'Achos) writes that the Isur of Nidah is less severe than the Arayos mentioned in the Mishnah because the Isur of Nidah is not specific to the husband's brother (the Yavam), but it is a general Isur which applies to every man in the world. In this sense she cannot be called an Ervah (see also <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> there). <b>RABEINU TAM</b> in <b>SEFER HA'YASHAR</b> (Teshuvos 80:1) writes that the Isur of Nidah is not called an Ervah because it has no permanence; it passes once a certain number of days has gone by and an act of Tevilah has been performed. This explains why the Gemara does not derive a prohibition against performing Yibum with a Nidah through a Binyan Av from Achos Ishto, which <i>is</i> an Ervah. If, however, there is a Hekesh between Nidah and the other Arayos, these 'Pirchos' should not be grounds to exclude Nidah from the Hekesh. Why, then, is a woman who was a Nidah at the time her husband died obligated to perform Yibum (when she becomes Tahor)?)
</p><p>
The question from the six severe forms of Arayos may be answered as follows. The Gemara understands from the verse that in a situation of Yibum, a Tzarah of an Ervah is forbidden because the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' remains and prohibits her from marrying her brother-in-law. This is learned from the fact that the Torah teaches the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' specifically in a situation of Yibum. Therefore, in the case of the six severe forms of Arayos -- whom one's brother may <i>never</i> marry (and thus one will never have an obligation to do Yibum with them), there is nothing to which to apply the Hekesh. Just as the Tzaros of the fifteen Arayos are not prohibited when there is no Yibum (for example, when the sister of Shimon's wife was married to an unrelated man, when that man dies Shimon is permitted to marry that man's other wife, the Tzarah of his sister-in-law), so, too, the Tzaros of the six severe forms of Arayos are not prohibited in a normal situation where there is no Yibum.
</p><p>
To answer the question from the case of a Nidah, it may be suggested that the principle of 'Ein Meshivin Al ha'Hekesh' means that one may not ask a question (Pircha) on a Hekesh just because one item is more lenient or more severe than the other items included in the Hekesh (even though such a Pircha does remove the item from a Binyan Av or from a Kal v'Chomer). However, if the Pircha involves not merely a leniency or stringency but a logical argument for why one of the items should not be included in the Hekesh, then that logical argument <i>is</i> able to remove the item from the Hekesh and prevent the Halachah from being applied to that item through the Hekesh. (The <b>SEFER KERISUS</b>, in Beis Midos 2:11, makes such a distinction between a Pircha and a logical argument with regard to deriving a Halachah through a Gezeirah Shavah. Although a Hekesh is considered stronger than a Gezeirah Shavah in some matters of Pircha (ibid. 2:14), the <b>SEFER HA'MIKNAH</b> (to Kidushin 15a, DH Mihu) writes that a logical difference can refute a Hekesh as well.) In the case of a Nidah, there is a logical argument which challenges the comparison to the other Arayos, and thus she is removed from the Hekesh. It is not merely a leniency or stringency which exists in the case of a Nidah; there is an essential difference between a Nidah and the other Arayos. This difference is the reason why Kidushin takes effect with a Nidah but not with the other Arayos. Therefore, Nidah is excluded from the Hekesh.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Tam (ibid.) presents a different argument. If the Torah would have intended to include Nidah among the list of women who exempt their Tzaros from Yibum, it would have written the word 'li'Tzror' in a verse that discusses Nidah, the most lenient of all of the prohibited women (as she is the only Ervah who becomes permitted after some time passes). The fact that the Torah writes 'li'Tzror' in the verse that discusses 'Achos Ishto' implies that Nidah is <i>not</i> to be compared to the other Arayos as far as this Halachah is concerned.
</p><p>
(Rabeinu Tam's logic in this matter is not clear. Normally, when there is a Hekesh we do not ask why the Torah reveals a particular law in a particular situation; we compare all of the items in the Hekesh to each other without asking questions. Perhaps Rabeinu Tam means that in this case, another Halachah was already derived through a Hekesh to 'Achos Ishto' -- the Halachah that Kidushin cannot take effect with an Ervah (Kidushin 68a). The Torah specifically excludes a Nidah from that Halachah (ibid.). Since one Halachah derived from 'Achos Ishto' does not apply to Nidah, it may be assumed that the other Halachos written in the same verse also do not apply to Nidah.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> It excludes (a Sotah and Ailonis,) the cases 
          of Rav and Rav Asi (Daf 11a and 12a. Our Tana agrees that 
          they do not do Yibum, but he holds that they do not 
          exempt their Tzaros.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Rav and Rav Asi (who say that they 
          exempt their Tzaros), what two cases are excluded?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> If each agrees to the law of his colleague, we 
          exclude the Tzaros of Mema'enes (a Mema'enes) and of 
          Machazir Gerushaso (a woman who transgressed and 
          remarried her ex-husband after marrying someone else in 
          between).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Rav and Rav Asi disagree with each other, each 
               excludes the case of his colleague and Tzaras 
               Mema'enes or Tzaras Machazir Gerushaso.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Rav and Rav Asi, why didn't the 
          Mishnah list their cases?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is because Tzaras Tzarah does not apply in 
          their cases. (Sotah and Ailonis are forbidden to all the 
          brothers, so their Tzaros cannot do Yibum with any 
          brother.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE SOURCE OF THE LAW OF THE 'MISHNAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of the law of the Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> What do we learn from 
          'V'Ishah El Achosah Lo Sikach Litzror (to be a Tzarah) 
          Legalos Ervasah <i>Aleha</i> b'Chayehah'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It says 'Yevamah Yavo Aleha'. One might have 
               thought that this applies to Arayos (i.e. if his 
               brother's wife was related to him in an additional 
               way, e.g. Bito);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A Gezeirah Shavah teaches just like 'Yevamah Yavo 
               Aleha' discusses Yibum, also the Isurim of Arayos 
               apply even in a case of Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This forbids Yibum with Arayos. How do we know 
          that Yibum with Tzaras Ervah is also forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It says 'Litzror' (to include Tzaros).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that the Tzarah of the Tzarah is 
          forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It says 'Litzror' instead of  'Latzor' (the extra 
          'Reish' comes to include).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This teaches about when the Yevamah is the 
          sister of the Yavam's wife. How do we know that this 
          applies to other Arayos?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Achos Ishto is Arayos punishable by Kares 
          (b'Mezid) and Chatas (b'Shogeg) and she may not do Yibum. 
          All such Arayos may not do Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This forbids the Arayos to do Yibum. What is 
          the source to forbid their Tzaros?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Achos Ishto is Ervah punishable by Kares and 
          Chatas, and she and her Tzarah may not do Yibum. The same 
          applies to all such Arayos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  This is the source that the 15 cases of the Mishnah 
          exempt the Tzaros, Tzaros of the Tzaros, ad infinitum 
          from Chalitzah and Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the six Arayos (of the Mishnah 13A) 
          which are more stringent should also exempt the Tzaros!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. Shimon's Achos Ishto was able to marry his 
          brother. We do not learn to the six Arayos that cannot 
          marry any (paternal) brother of Shimon!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is because the law of a Tzarah applies only to 
               co-wives of a brother.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This forbids Yibum. Where do we know the 
          punishment if they do Yibum?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'All that do any of these abominations... (will 
          get Kares)'.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN 'ASEH' OVERRIDES A 'LAV'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> Had the Torah not written 'Aleha' to forbid 
          Yibum with Achos Ishto, we would permit Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> An Aseh is Docheh (overrides) a Lav. 
          (Additional answers will be given starting on Daf 7a. 
          Answers to Question #1 (below) begin on Daf 5b.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> This applies only to a plain Lav, but not to 
          a Lav punishable by Kares!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> What is the source that an Aseh overrides a 
          plain Lav?
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXPOUNDING 'SEMICHUS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (to Question #2):</font></b> It says 'Do not wear 
          Sha'atnez...; Make for yourself Gedilim (fringes)';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'Semuchim La'ad l'Olam Asuyim be'Emes 
          v'Yashar' - this teaches that we derive laws from 
          Semuchim (the adjacency of verses).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'Lo Sachsom Shor b'Disho' is followed by 
          Parashas Yibum, to teach that we do not silence a woman 
          who fell to Yibum to a man covered with boils (she can 
          refuse to do Yibum).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Even R. Yehudah, who normally doesn't 
          expound Semuchim, agrees that we do in Sefer Devarim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that normally he doesn't 
          expound Semuchim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa - Ben Azai):</font></b> 'Do not allow a witch to 
          live. One who sleeps with an animal will die'. The 
          Semichus teaches that just like bestiality is punished by 
          stoning, also witchcraft;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yehudah:</font></b> Will we stone a witch just because they 
               are adjacent?! Rather, Ov and Yid'oni (ways of 
               conjuring up the dead) were in the category of 
               witchcraft. They were singled out to teach that they 
               are punishable by stoning, and from them we learn to 
               all witchcraft.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that R. Yehudah expounds 
          Semuchim in Sefer Devarim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Mishnah):</font></b> A man may marry a woman who was Anusah 
          or Mefutah (raped or enticed) by his father or son;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah forbids Anusas Aviv and Mefutas Aviv.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Gidal):</font></b> R. Yehudah learns from 'Lo Yikach Ish 
               Es Eshes Aviv v'Lo Yegaleh Kenaf Aviv'. He knows 
               that Kenaf Aviv refers to an Anusah, since the 
               previous verse discusses this (and he learns Mefutah 
               from Anusah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim argue, because the Isur of Eshes Aviv 
               interrupts in between. They say that 'Kenaf Aviv' 
               refers to a woman awaiting Yibum from his father. 
               This is a second Lav forbidding her (the Lav of 
               Dodaso, his uncle's wife, is even after his uncle 
               died).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does R. Yehudah expound Semuchim in 
          Devarim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Surely, the verses were written here (and not 
          in their proper place earlier in the Torah) to expound 
          Semichus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Kenaf Aviv belongs with the Arayos (in Acharei Mos). 
               Surely, it was written here for the Semichus,
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> He expounds Semuchim in Devarim because (one 
          or both of) the verses are superfluous;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In this case, 'V'Lo Yegaleh Kenaf Aviv' is extra.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DERIVING A PROHIBITION THROUGH 'SEMUCHIN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yehudah maintains that 'Semuchin' -- the method of deriving Halachos through the proximity of one verse to another -- may be implemented only if there is a compelling reason ('Muchach') to do so (for example, one of the verses being expounded is out of place and belongs somewhere else), or if one of the verses is extra ('Mufneh').
</p><p>
One such incident of Semuchin which Rebbi Yehudah expounds is the verse, 'Lo Yikach Ish Es Eshes Aviv, v'Lo Yegaleh Kenaf Aviv' -- 'A man shall not take the wife of his father, and he shall not uncover the cloak of his father' (Devarim 23:1). Rebbi Yehudah utilizes Semuchin to derive that the phrase, 'Lo Yegaleh Kenaf Aviv,' teaches that one may not marry 'Anusas Aviv,' a woman who was raped by his father. Which verse is extra ('Mufneh') such that Rebbi Yehudah can apply Semuchin? The Gemara says that the words, 'Lo Yegaleh Kenaf Aviv,' are extra, since the first half of the verse already teaches that a man may not take his father's wife. Since the second half of the verse is extra, it must be teaching -- through Semuchin (proximity to the previous Parshah which discusses the laws of rape) -- the prohibition against marrying 'Anusas Aviv.'
</p><p>
The Rabanan -- who argue with Rebbi Yehudah and permit a man to marry a woman who was raped by his father -- understand the verse differently. They explain that 'Lo Yegaleh Kenaf Aviv' does not teach the prohibition of 'Anusas Aviv,' but rather it teaches the prohibition against marrying the 'Shomeres Yavam' of one's father (a woman who is bound to perform Yibum with one's father but has not yet performed Yibum or Chalitzah).
</p><p>
Why, then, when the Gemara explains the view of Rebbi Yehudah, does it say that the second half of the verse is superfluous? It is clear from the view of the Rabanan that it is not superfluous -- it teaches the prohibition of 'Shomeres Yavam' of one's father. Since that part of the verse is not extra, Rebbi Yehudah should not be able to apply Semuchin to derive the prohibition of 'Anusas Aviv.' (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Im Ken)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that Rebbi Yehudah considers only one word to be extra, and not the entire second half of the verse. If the intention of the verse would have been to teach only the prohibition of 'Shomeres Yavam,' it would have said, 'v'Lo Yegaleh <i>Kenafav</i>' ('[A man shall not take the wife of his father,] and he shall not uncover <i>his cloak</i>'), without the extra word 'Aviv' ('of his father'), since the verse already says 'Aviv' in the previous clause and it is clear that 'Aviv' (his father) is the subject of the verse. Since the word 'Aviv' is superfluous, Rebbi Yehudah has license to apply Semuchin.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RIVAN</b> answers that there is another reason for why Rebbi Yehudah does not accept that the verse refers to 'Shomeres Yavam' of one's father. In the case of the 'Shomeres Yavam' of one's father, the woman who is bound to do Yibum with his father (whose brother died childless) is already forbidden to him by two other prohibitions: the prohibition against a Yevamah marrying anyone other than her husband's brother ('Isur Yevamah la'Shuk'), and the prohibition of 'Eshes Achi Aviv' (the wife of the brother of one's father). If this verse would refer to the 'Shomeres Yavam' of one's father, then it would teach a <i>third</i> prohibition for an act which is already forbidden by two other prohibitions. It is illogical to assume that the intent of the verse is to add a third Lo Ta'aseh to one act. (Although the first half of the verse adds a Lo Ta'aseh to the prohibition of 'Eshes Aviv,' that is only a second, and not a third, Lo Ta'aseh.) Therefore, Rebbi Yehudah understands that the verse refers only to 'Eshes Aviv,' and, consequently, the second half of the verse is extra and is able to teach, by way of Semuchin, the prohibition of 'Anusas Aviv.' (This also appears to be the approach of Rashi (DH Lichtevei).)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'ISUR' OF 'SHA'ATNEZ'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  These same answers apply to Tzitzis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  'Make Tzitzis' should have been taught in Parashas 
          Tzitzis. Rather, it is taught here so we will expound 
          Semuchim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  It already says, 'A garment of Sha'atnez will not come 
          upon you', so 'Do not wear Sha'atnez' is extra to teach 
          through Semichus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> It is not extra. Both verses are needed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it said only 'It will not come upon you', one 
               would think that even a clothing salesman may not 
               put on Sha'atnez (to display it);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  'Do not wear' teaches that it is forbidden only 
                    to wear like clothing, i.e. when he benefits 
                    from it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it said only 'Do not wear', one might have 
               thought that only wearing is prohibited, since there 
               is great benefit;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  'It will not come upon you' forbids putting it 
                    on yourself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It could have said only 'Do not wear Sha'atnez'. 
          'Wool and linen' is extra.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> The Torah discusses Stam 
               (unspecified) garments. In one case (regarding 
               Tzara'as), it specified wool and linen. We learn 
               that all Stam garments are of wool or linen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rhetorical question:</font></b> If so, why does it say 'wool 
               and linen' regarding Sha'atnez?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> They are extra (therefore, we expound the 
               Semichus).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> They are needed! One might have thought 
               that <i>having</i> Sha'atnez on oneself, which is a small 
               pleasure, applies only to wool and linen; but it is 
               forbidden to <i>wear</i> any two different materials in 
               one garment, for this is a big pleasure;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Therefore, it was needed to write wool and 
                    linen!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'Wool and linen' are extra. We would have 
               known from the Gezeirah Shavah 'Sha'atnez-Sha'atnez' 
               that it is the same in both places.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'SHA'ATNEZ' IS ALLOWED IN 'TZITZIS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Observation:</font></b> Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael know only that 
          Sha'atnez may be worn to fulfill the Mitzvah of Tzitzis 
          because of the extra words 'wool and linen'. Otherwise, 
          it would be forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It says 'They will make Tzitzis on the corners 
          of their garments', and Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael taught 
          that all unspecified garments are wool or linen. And the 
          Torah said to put Techeiles, which is wool, on them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How do we know that Techeiles is wool?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Since Shesh is linen, Techeiles must be 
               wool. (We know that Bigdei Kehunah contain both of 
               these - see Rashi.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Torah needed to write 'wool and linen' so we 
          would not learn like the Hava Amina of Rava (that we must 
          make wool fringes for a wool garment, and linen fringes 
          for a linen garment):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rava):</font></b> 'The corner' teaches to make 
               fringes of the same material like the garment;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction:</font></b> 'Wool and linen...; Gedilim Ta'aseh 
               Lecha' teaches that the fringes are wool or linen!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> Wool and linen are acceptable Tzitzis 
               for any garment. Tzitzis of any other material are 
               only valid for a garment of that material.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael exempts other materials, 
          i.e. he does not expound 'The corner' like Rava does. 
          Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael has no source to require fringes 
          of the same material like the garment!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We would have thought to learn like Rava 
          regarding a garment of wool or linen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We would make wool Tzitzis for a wool garment, and 
               linen for linen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> When the garment is wool, we would dye a thread 
               Techeiles.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We could not make wool Tzitzis for a linen garment, 
               or vice-versa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> 'Wool and linen' teaches that either may be used for 
               Tzitzis for a garment of either material.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE SOURCE THAT AN 'ASEH' OVERRIDES A 'LAV'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael learns from Tzitzis that 
          Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh . What is Chachamim's source?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> They learn from Taharas Metzora. He must shave 
          (all his hair, including) his head (and transgress 
          cutting the Pe'os):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Rosho' - if not for this verse, one 
               would think that 'Al Takifu Pe'as Roshchem' applies 
               even to Taharas Metzora.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Tana holds that one who cuts all the hair on his 
               head transgresses cutting the Pe'os.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The Lav not to cut the Pe'os applies only to 
          men. We cannot learn from here that an Aseh overrides a 
          Lav that is Shavah b'Chol (applies to everyone)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> We learn from the Taharah of a Kohen Metzora. 
          (Even though there is a special Mitzvah for Kohanim not 
          to shave,) he shaves his beard.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If not for 'Zekano', one would have 
               thought that 'They (Kohanim) will not shave the 
               corners of their beards' applies even to a Kohen 
               Metzora.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Since we already learned that an Aseh overrides a 
               Lav that is not Shavah b'Chol, this must teach that 
               even a Lav ha'Shavah b'Chol may be overridden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We need the verse to permit a Kohen Metzora to 
          shave!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that since the Torah gave 
               extra Mitzvos to Kohanim, their extra Mitzvos are 
               not overridden, even though they are not Shavah 
               b'Chol!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> We learn from 'Rosho' like the following Tana:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'A razor will not pass 
               over Rosho' applies to a Nazir even if he is a 
               Metzora!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Rosho' teaches that the Mitzvah for a 
               Metzora to shave overrides the Lav for a Nazir to 
               shave (his head).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Since we already learned that an Aseh overrides a 
               Lav that is not Shavah b'Chol, this must teach that 
               even a Lav ha'Shavah b'Chol may be overridden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The Isurim of a Nazir are weaker, since one 
          can annul the Nezirus. We cannot learn to a regular Lav!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for objection) Question:</font></b> We hold that an Aseh 
          does not override a Lav and an Aseh. Why don't we learn 
          from Nazir that it does? (He also has an Aseh to grow his 
          hair, 'Kadosh Yihyeh Gadel Pera'.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We cannot learn from Isurei Nazir, since 
               they can be annulled.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> For the same reason we cannot learn from Nazir that 
               an Aseh overrides a Lav.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) EXPOUNDING 'SEMUCHIN' TO TEACH 'ASEH DOCHEH LO TA'ASEH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses at length the source for the principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh.' It proposes that this principle is derived from the proximity of the prohibition against wearing Kil'ayim with the command to make Tzitzis for one's garment. The proximity (Semuchin) of these two verses teaches that one may place threads of wool on a garment of linen in order to make Tzitzis, and that the Mitzvas Aseh of Tzitzis overrides the Lo Ta'aseh of Kil'ayim.
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that this is a valid source for 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh' according to d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael who maintains that the verse of Kil'ayim contains an extra phrase which gives us license to apply Semuchin and to derive that the Aseh of Tzitzis overrides the Lo Ta'aseh of Kil'ayim. According to the Rabanan, however, there is no extra phrase in the verse (because they maintain that the phrase 'Tzemer u'Pishtim' is necessary to teach that the prohibition of Kil'ayim applies only to a mixture of wool and linen and not to any other mixture). The Gemara asks what is the source, according to the Rabanan, for the principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh,' since Semuchin can be applied only when there is an extra phrase in the verse.
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? It is only Rebbi Yehudah who requires an extra phrase ('Mufneh') in the verse in order to expound Semuchin. The Rabanan who argue with d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael may follow the view of the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Yehudah and do not require an extra phrase in order to expound Semuchin.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Rabanan) says that the Gemara asks this question merely to cover all possibilities, including the possibility that the Rabanan agree with Rebbi Yehudah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> answers that the Rabanan -- who disagree with Rebbi Yehudah and apply Semuchin even when there is no extra phrase in the verse -- nevertheless require an extra phrase to <i>extend</i> the law derived from Semuchin to other cases through a Binyan Av. When there is no extra phrase, the law derived through Semuchin applies only to the specific case mentioned in the verse and cannot be applied to other cases. (See also <b>ME'IRI</b>) 
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> in the name of <b>RABEINU MEIR</b> explains that even if the Rabanan maintain that we expound Semuchin, perhaps in this case the Semuchin does not teach that one may place Tzitzis of wool on a garment of linen. Perhaps according to the Rabanan (who do not maintain that whenever the verse says 'Beged' it refers exclusively to wool and linen) the Semuchin teaches a different Halachah altogether -- the Halachah of Rava, that Tzitzis of wool be may placed on a garment of any material (including linen), but Tzitzis of linen may be placed only on a garment of linen or other non-wool material (and Tzitzis made of any other material may be placed only on a garment made of the same material). 
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE TEACHING OF THE VERSE OF 'ROSHO'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that the verse, 'Rosho' -- 'On the seventh day he shall shave off all of his hair, [and the hair of] <i>his head</i>' (Vayikra 14:9), teaches that the Mitzvas Aseh for a Metzora to shave his hair overrides the Lo Ta'aseh against shaving the hair of the corners of one's head ('Hakafas ha'Rosh'). The Gemara suggests that this is the source for the principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh.' The Gemara (5b) concludes that there is another source for 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh' -- the verses which teach that the Mitzvas Aseh of Tzitzis overrides the Lo Ta'aseh of Kil'ayim.
</p><p>
If another source teaches that an Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh, why is the verse of 'Rosho' necessary? Once the Torah teaches that an Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh, that principle may be applied to a Metzora who is obligated by a Mitzvas Aseh to shave his entire head, even though a Lo Ta'aseh prohibits one from shaving his entire head. If an Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh in the case of Tzitzis and Kil'ayim (where the Lo Ta'aseh applies to everyone), then in the case of a Metzora -- where the Lo Ta'aseh against shaving the entire head applies only to men and not to women -- the Aseh certainly should override the Lo Ta'aseh. (The Gemara in Nazir 58a implies that according to the Tana who expounds the verse of 'Rosho,' the source for 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh' is <i>not</i> the verses regarding Tzitzis, but the word 'Rosho' in this verse. The Sugya here, however, does not agree with that Tana.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mah l'Lav) answers that the verse of 'Rosho' is needed to teach a different Halachah and not the principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh.' It teaches that shaving the entire head is considered 'Hakafah' ('Hakafas ha'Rosh Shmei Hakafah') and it would have been prohibited had it not been for the Mitzvas Aseh.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, without the verse of 'Rosho' one might have thought that the second verse quoted by the Gemara -- the verse of 'Zekano' -- does not refer to the Mitzvas Aseh of a Kohen Metzora to shave his hair and does not teach a new principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh v'Aseh' in the case of a Kohen Metzora. Rather, one might have thought that the verse of 'Zekano' refers to the Mitzvas Aseh of an ordinary Metzora to shave his hair, a case in which there is only a Lo Ta'aseh not to shave, and thus the Aseh certainly overrides the Lo Ta'aseh. The verse of 'Rosho' teaches that 'Zekano' indeed refers to a Kohen Metzora and teaches that an Aseh overrides both an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4:</font></b> Really, we learn from the Semichus of the 
          Mitzvah of Tzitzis to the Isur of Sha'atnez.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'Gedilim' instead of 'Tzitzis' to teach that 
               we should expound the Semichus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> It needs to say 'Gedilim' to teach the number 
          of threads!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Gedil' is (strings wrapped together, i.e. at least) 
               two. 'Gedilim' (plural) is four;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> (These are inserted through the 
               corner, making eight ends;) we make a Gedil (wrap 
               them together). 'Pesil' teaches that we leave part 
               like Pesilim (unwrapped).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 (Tosfos):</font></b> 'Pesil' teaches that we (insert 
               them through the corner and) fold them. (end of 
               Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> It would have sufficed to say 'Sha'atnez'. The 
          Torah added 'Wool and linen' to teach that we expound the 
          Semichus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We need 'Wool and linen' to teach that two 
          stitches are considered connected, but one stitch is not!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Torah could have said just 'Wool and 
          linen'. 'Sha'atnez' was added to teach both.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We need the word 'Sha'atnez' to teach that it 
          must be Shu'A, Tavuy, and NuZ (smoothed, spun and woven)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn everything from the word 'Sha'atnez' 
          (the Torah could have said 'Kil'ayim', and it could have 
          explicitly said Shu'a, Tavuy, and Nuz).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS AN 'AVEIRAH' WITH 'KARES' OVERRIDDEN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This shows that a regular Lav may be 
          overridden. We still have not answered Question 5:d (Daf 
          3b), where do we find that a Lav with Kares is overridden 
          (necessitating 'Aleha' to teach that Yibum does not 
          override Eshes Ach? Circumcision, Korban Pesach and the 
          Tamid override Shabbos, but we cannot learn from them!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We cannot learn from Milah, for 13 covenants were 
               made over it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We cannot learn from Korban Pesach, for one who 
               neglects to offer it gets Kares!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We cannot learn from the Tamid, since this is a 
               constant Mitzvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> We cannot learn from any one of these. 
          Perhaps we can learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah of two of 
          them?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> We cannot learn from circumcision and Pesach, 
          for both of these have Kares (but a regular Aseh does not 
          override Kares);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We cannot learn from Pesach and Tamid, for these are 
               needs of (Avodas Mizbe'ach of) Hash-m!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We cannot learn from circumcision and Tamid, for 
               both of these preceded Matan Torah!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This is like the opinion that the Olos offered 
                    in the Midbar were Temidim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  We cannot learn from all three, since they all preceded 
          Matan Torah!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>COULD WE LEARN FROM HONORING PARENTS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (to Question #1, Sof Daf 3b):</font></b> Had the Torah not 
          written 'Aleha' we would gave learned from Kibud Av va'Em 
          that even a Mitzvah with Kares is overridden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps Kibud Av va'Em 
               overrides Shabbos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'A man will fear his parents, and keep My 
               Shabbosos' - all of you (even your parents) must 
               honor Hash-m!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The parent told the child to slaughter 
               or cook. If not for the verse, this would override a 
               Melachah of Shabbos (which is Chayavei Kerisos)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, he told the child to be Mechamer (make an 
          animal work). This is a Lav (without Kares), yet it does 
          not override Shabbos.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) A POTENTIAL SOURCE FOR 'ASEH DOCHEH LO TA'ASEH SHE'YESH BO KARES'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara seeks a source for the principle that 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kares,' a Mitzvas Aseh overrides even a Lo Ta'aseh which is punishable with Kares.
</p><p>
How does the Gemara know that an Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh which is punishable with Kares? There seems to be evidence to the contrary. The fact that the Torah specifically teaches, in the case of Tzitzis made from Kil'ayim, that an Aseh overrides an ordinary Lo Ta'aseh (one which is not punishable with Kares) implies that an Aseh does <i>not</i> override a Lo Ta'aseh which is punishable with Kares. Why, then, does the Gemara seek a source to prove that it does?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (6a, DH Ta'ama) explains that one might have thought that the verse of Tzitzis does not teach that an Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh, but rather it teaches the Halachah of Rava, that Tzitzis of wool or linen may be placed on a garment of any material. Without the verse, one would have thought that the Tzitzis must be made from the same material from which the garment is made. Since the verse is needed to teach that the garment may be made from a different material than the Tzitzis, one might have assumed that the verse cannot be used to teach 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh.' Consequently, the Gemara is justified in seeking another source that teaches that an Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> further suggests that perhaps the Mitzvas Aseh of Tzitzis is considered a weaker Aseh because it does not apply to everyone (women are exempt from the Mitzvah of Tzitzis). For this reason, a verse is needed to teach that the Mitzvah of Tzitzis nevertheless overrides the Lo Ta'aseh of Kil'ayim.
</p><p>
(This answer does not explain why the Gemara attempts to derive from the Mitzvah of Milah that an Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares. Milah also is a Mitzvah which does not apply to everyone, and nevertheless it overrides a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares. Accordingly, the Mitzvah of Tzitzis certainly should override an ordinary Lo Ta'aseh.) (See <b>MELO HA'RO'IM</b> to 6a for another possible answer.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT OVERRIDES 'SHABBOS'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We hold that an Aseh overrides a Lav. We should 
          learn from here that it does not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps Isurim of Shabbos are more 
               stringent than regular Lavin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> The following Tana does not distinguish!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> If a father told his son 
                    (a Kohen) to become Tamei (Mes), or not to 
                    return a lost object, perhaps he should obey!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'A man will fear his parents, and 
                    keep My Shabbosos' - you are all obliged to 
                    honor Hash-m.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Hechsher Mitzvah is different. (Tosfos - the 
          Mitzvah of Kibud is giving food to a parent. Hechsherim, 
          i.e. means to this end, do not override Lavin. Rashi - 
          Hechsher Mitzvah, i.e. what is inevitable for fulfillment 
          of a Mitzvah, overrides even Kares. Transgressing Eshes 
          Ach is not inevitable. One can do Chalitzah instead!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to Question #1, Daf 3b):</font></b> We would have learned 
          from Binyan Beis ha'Mikdash that a Mitzvah with Kares is 
          overridden:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps Binyan Beis ha'Mikdash 
               overrides Shabbos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Keep My Shabbosos and fear My Mikdash' - 
               you are all obliged to honor me.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We would have thought that building and 
               destroying are allowed, if not for the verse.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, the suggestion was to permit Mechamer. The 
          verse rejects this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We hold that an Aseh overrides a Lav. We should 
          learn from here that it does not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Isurim of Shabbos are more stringent 
               than regular Lavin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> The following Tana does not distinguish 
               (he learns other Isurim from Shabbos)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps if a father told 
                    his son (a Kohen) to become Tamei, or not to 
                    return a lost object, he should obey!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Rejection 'A man will fear his parents, and 
                    keep My Shabbosos' - you are all obliged to 
                    honor Hash-m.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Tosfos) Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa teaches that 
          <i>Hechsher</i> Mitzvah does not override a Lav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Rashi) Answer:</font></b> (Really, the father told the 
          child to slaughter or cook. If not for the verse, this 
          would override Shabbos, for) these are Hechsher Mitzvah. 
          (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We already learned that we (Tosfos - do not) 
          override a Lav for Hechsher Mitzvah from the verse of 
          honoring parents (1:a:1)!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>FEAR OF THE 'MIKDASH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> True; our verse comes to teach the following.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps a person should fear 
               the Mikdash!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Keep My Shabbosos and fear My Mikdash' 
               discusses guarding Shabbos and fearing the Mikdash. 
               We fear the One who commanded to keep Shabbos, not 
               Shabbos itself. Similarly, we fear the One who 
               commanded about the Mikdash, not the Mikdash itself.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DOES A 'HECHSHER MITZVAH' OVERRIDE A 'LO TA'ASEH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara seeks a source for the principle that 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kares,' a Mitzvas Aseh overrides even a Lo Ta'aseh which is punishable with Kares. The Gemara suggests that this principle is derived from the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em. The Torah teaches that the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em does <i>not</i> override the Lo Ta'aseh not to perform Melachah on Shabbos (for example, in a case in which one's parent tells him to desecrate Shabbos), which is a Lo Ta'aseh which is punishable with Kares. The fact that the Torah specifically states that Kibud Av va'Em does not override the Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos implies that in all <i>other</i> cases an Aseh <i>does</i> override a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares.
</p><p>
The Gemara rejoins that no proof may be deduced from Kibud Av va'Em, because perhaps when the Torah says that Kibud Av va'Em does not override the Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos, it refers only to a Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos which is <i>not</i> punishable with Kares, such as the prohibition of Mechamer (leading an animal). Accordingly, no inference can be made from that case to the case of a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that if the verse refers only to a Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos which is not punishable with Kares, then the opposite law should be derived from there -- that an Aseh does <i>not</i> override even an ordinary Lo Ta'aseh. The Gemara proposes that the Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos differs from other prohibitions and is more stringent, but the Gemara refutes that answer.
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that since Kibud Av va'Em is a 'Hechsher Mitzvah,' it differs from other Mitzvos Aseh and does not override a Lo Ta'aseh.
</p><p>
What does the Gemara's answer mean? What is a 'Hechsher Mitzvah,' and why is the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em considered one? Why does such a Mitzvah not override a Lo Ta'aseh?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> understands that 'Hechsher Mitzvah' in this context refers to a Mitzvah which is fulfilled only by transgressing a Lo Ta'aseh. There is no way to fulfill the Aseh without transgressing the Lo Ta'aseh.
</p><p>
Rashi understands that the Gemara returns to its original assumption that the verse refers to a Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos which <i>is</i> punishable with Kares. The verse teaches that the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em does not override a Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos that has Kares even though it is a 'Hechsher Mitzvah' (and in all other cases of a 'Hechsher Mitzvah' the Mitzvah <i>does</i> override a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares). Without the verse, one would have thought that Kibud Av va'Em also overrides Shabbos since the fulfillment of the parent's request (to cook for him on Shabbos, for example) is not possible without also transgressing the Lo Ta'aseh. In contrast, in the case of Yibum with a woman who is an Ervah to her brother-in-law, it is possible to avoid the Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares and fulfill the Mitzvah by doing Chalitzah instead.
</p><p>
In short, according to Rashi, the Gemara means that an Aseh <i>can</i> override a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares when there is no other way to fulfill the Aseh (in this particular situation) other than by transgressing the Lo Ta'aseh.
</p><p>
The Gemara's answer, however, is still difficult to understand. In practice, there is never a case in which an Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh which is punishable with Kares.
</p><p>
Moreover, the Gemara in Bava Metzia (32a) points out that aside from the fact that an Aseh does not override a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares, there is another reason for why the Mitzvah of Kibud Av v'Em (or Binyan Beis ha'Mikdash) obviously does not override Shabbos. The observance of Shabbos involves both an Aseh <i>and</i> a Lo Ta'aseh, and a Mitzvas Aseh cannot override an Aseh <i>and</i> Lo Ta'aseh together (see <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Nigmar). The Gemara in Bava Metzia answers that the Aseh of Kibud Av va'Em is stronger than any other Aseh, since the honor of one's parents is compared to the honor of Hash-m, and thus one might have thought that it overrides even an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh together. (The same can be said of the Mitzvah of Binyan Beis ha'Mikdash, as the awe for the Beis ha'Mikdash is compared to the awe of the Almighty.)
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Gemara assert that we cannot learn from Kibud Av va'Em that every Mitzvah overrides a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares because it is a 'Hechsher Mitzvah'? The Gemara should say that we cannot compare any other Mitzvas Aseh to Kibud Av va'Em because Kibud Av va'Em is stronger than any other Mitzvah! The <b>MAHARSHA</b> suggests that the Gemara indeed could have given that answer. Kibud Av va'Em is not only a 'Hechsher Mitzvah' but an especially strong Mitzvah in its own right. Hence, even according to the Gemara's conclusion we <i>cannot</i> learn from Kibud Av va'Em that an ordinary Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares when there is no way to avoid the Lo Ta'aseh.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that 'Hechsher Mitzvah' here means the opposite of what Rashi says: an Aseh which is <i>only</i> a 'Hechsher Mitzvah' does <i>not</i> override a Lo Ta'aseh even if the Lo Ta'aseh is not punishable with Kares (such as Mechamer on Shabbos). A 'Hechsher Mitzvah' refers to an act which is merely preparatory to the Mitzvah and not the actual fulfillment of the Mitzvah itself. When a person leads an animal on Shabbos in order to bring food to his father, the act of Mechamer is only a preparatory act for the fulfillment of the Mitzvah. The actual Mitzvah is fulfilled when one gives the food to his father.
</p><p>
According to Tosfos, the Gemara does not return to its original assumption. Rather, the Gemara upholds its explanation that the verse refers to a Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos that does <i>not</i> have Kares (such as Mechamer), and it teaches that since the act of transgressing Mechamer is only preparatory to the main Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em, one may not transgress a Lo Ta'aseh (even one that does not have Kares) in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Kivud Av va'Em.
</p><p>
Rashi apparently rejects this explanation because Mechamer is not always a mere act of preparation for the Mitzvah of Kibud Av. When one's father specifically instructs his son to guide the animal for him on Shabbos, the act of Mechamer is the actual fulfillment of the Mitzvah and is not just a preparatory act.
</p><p>
Tosfos addresses this question. He explains that although in some situations the act of Mechamer may be the actual fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em, nevertheless in <i>most</i> situations Mechamer is merely a preparatory act. For this reason, even when the father instructs his son to guide the animal on Shabbos, the Mitzvah of Kibud Av does not override the Lo Ta'aseh of Mechamer. According to Tosfos, the Gemara means that an act which is <i>usually</i> an act of preparation for a Mitzvah, 'Hechsher Mitzvah,' does not override a Lo Ta'aseh.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is fear of the Mikdash?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A person does not enter Har ha'Bayis with his 
          staff, shoes, money-belt, or dust on his feet. He may not 
          make it a shortcut; all the more so, he may not spit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Shabbos Perhaps this applies only when the Beis 
          ha'Mikdash stands!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> 'Keep My Shabbosos and fear My Mikdash' - just 
          like observing Shabbos applies forever, also fear of the 
          Mikdash.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS 'SHABBOS' OVERRIDDEN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (to Question #1):</font></b> We would have learned from 
          Misas Sereifah that a Mitzvah with Kares is overridden:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael) Question:</font></b> What do 
               we learn from 'Do not kindle fire in all your 
               dwellings on Shabbos'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> A Beraisa already teaches this! R. Yosi 
               expounds that burning is only a Lav. R. Noson 
               expounds to Mechalek (one is liable for each 
               Melachah of Shabbos by itself)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Clarification (Rava):</font></b> The Tana asks what we learn 
               from 'your dwellings'.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Since Shabbos is an obligation of people (not 
                    of the land), it applies outside of Eretz 
                    Yisrael as well. What do we learn from 'in all 
                    your dwellings'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Yishmael) Suggestion #1:</font></b> Perhaps 'When a 
               man is Chayav Misah he will be killed' applies even 
               on Shabbos!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> But it says 'Mechalelehah (those who 
                    desecrate Shabbos) Mos Yumas'!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That would apply to Melachos other than 
                    Misas Beis Din.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #2:</font></b> Or, perhaps 'Mechalelehah Mos Yumas' 
               applies even to Misas Beis Din, and 'he will be 
               killed' is only on a weekday!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #3:</font></b> Or, perhaps it is even on Shabbos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> It says 'Do not kindle fire in all your 
               dwellings on Shabbos', and '... judgment... in your 
               dwellings'. Just like the latter 'dwellings' refers 
               to Beis Din, also the former, and the Torah forbids 
               burning.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The Tana holds like R. Noson, who says 
               that the verse is Mechalek. If not for the verse, we 
               would have said that execution overrides Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, the Tana is R. Yosi. (Burning is only a 
          Lav, therefore one might have thought that execution 
          overrides it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Even R. Yosi exempts only burning from Kares. 
          Beis Din burns people by melting lead (and pouring it 
          down their throats)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Melting lead is like cooking 
               ingredients to make dye (there is Kares for it)!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A CASE OF AN 'ASEH' WHICH DOES NOT OVERRIDE A 'LO TA'ASEH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara derives from a verse that Beis Din is not allowed to kindle a fire on Shabbos (Hav'arah) in order to kill a person who is liable for Sereifah. One might have thought that Hav'arah in such a situation is permitted because of the principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kares.' The Gemara concludes that Hav'arah on Shabbos is a Lo Ta'aseh that does not have Kares. Since the Torah already teaches that an Aseh overrides an ordinary Lo Ta'aseh (one that does not have Kares), a verse is needed to teach that in the case of Hav'arah on Shabbos, the Mitzvas Aseh of Misas Beis Din does <i>not</i> override the Lo Ta'aseh of Hav'arah.
</p><p>
(a) If Hav'arah is only a Lo Ta'aseh, then the Gemara should learn from this case that an Aseh does <i>not</i> override an ordinary Lo Ta'aseh (as the Gemara asks earlier (6a) with regard to Mechamer). Why does the Gemara here not make such an inference?
</p><p>
(b) Why is a verse needed to teach that the Aseh does not override the Lo Ta'aseh in this case? The principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh' obviously does not apply in this case because the Aseh is not performed at the same time as the Lo Ta'aseh. The Lo Ta'aseh occurs when the fire is kindled and the lead is melted, while the Aseh is fulfilled only when the person is killed.
</p><p>
(c) Why does the Gemara say that kindling a flame on Shabbos in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Sereifah constitutes only a Lo Ta'aseh that does not have Kares? The act also involves the Melachah of 'Netilas Neshamah' -- killing a living creature on Shabbos, which is a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Rishonim suggest two approaches to the first question.
</p><p>
1. The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that kindling the fire in this case is only a 'Hechsher Mitzvah' for the actual Aseh of killing the person, and that is why it does not override a Lo Ta'aseh (as the Gemara teaches on 6a). (The Rashba understands 'Hechsher Mitzvah' as Tosfos explains it; see previous insight.) The Gemara could have asked that no verse is needed to teach this since it is derived from another verse (6a), but the Gemara had a better question to ask.
</p><p>
2. <b>TOSFOS</b> and other Rishonim explain that on Shabbos, in addition to the Lo Ta'aseh against desecrating Shabbos there is also an <i>Aseh</i> to guard and observe the laws of Shabbos. That Aseh applies to all of the prohibitions of Shabbos, and thus any act of Shabbos desecration involves the violation of both an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh. Accordingly, one who performs the act of Hav'arah transgresses both an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh (according to Rebbi Yosi). This explains why the Aseh does not override the Lo Ta'aseh in this case; an Aseh cannot override both another Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh. Hence, this case does not prove that an Aseh does not override a lone Lo Ta'aseh. (Why, though, does the law in this case not imply that in all other cases of an Aseh together with a Lo Ta'aseh, an Aseh <i>does</i> override both? Tosfos writes that the Gemara could have asked this question, but it had a better question to ask.)
</p><p>
(b) Three approaches are suggested to answer the second question.
</p><p>
1. The <b>RASHBA</b> writes that the Gemara indeed could have asked why a verse is needed to teach that the Aseh does not override the Lo Ta'aseh in this case, when, in this case, the Aseh is not performed at the same time as the Lo Ta'aseh.
</p><p>
2. The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> explains that perhaps since the Aseh of killing the perpetrator is a 'Mitzvah d'Rabim,' a public Mitzvah incumbent upon all of the Jewish people, it is a 'stronger' Mitzvah than others (see <b>TOSFOS</b> 6a, DH Nigmar) and thus it can override a Lo Ta'aseh even when they are not done at the exact same time.
</p><p>
3. The <b>RAMBAN</b> writes that it is possible to perform the Aseh and the Lo Ta'aseh at the same time by holding the lead above the perpetrator's mouth and burning it there so that it falls directly into her mouth and kills her. This is considered 'at the same time.'
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> rejects this answer because the two events still occur at two separate times. The lead does not go into the mouth at the same time it is kindled; one event follows the other sequentially.
</p><p>
Perhaps the Ramban follows the view expressed by the <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> (Bava Metzia 32a) who explains that when the <i>beginning</i> of an act which fulfills a Mitzvas Aseh is done at the same time as the Lo Ta'aseh, the two are considered to occur 'at the same time.' If the lead is held above the open mouth of the Bas Kohen, one begins the act which kills her when he lights the fire which melts the lead which drips into her mouth. The Rashba, on the other hand, maintains that the Aseh must be completely fulfilled at the time the Lo Ta'aseh is transgressed in order to override it, but in this case the Aseh is fulfilled only at the moment the Bas Kohen dies (and not when the lead is poured into her mouth).
</p><p>
(c) Why does the Gemara not ask that the kindling of a flame on Shabbos in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Sereifah constitutes the Lo Ta'aseh of 'Netilas Neshamah,' which is a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares? The <b>RASHBA</b> (<b>TESHUVOS</b> 1:357) writes that this essentially <i>is</i> what the Gemara asks when it says that there still is a Meleches Shabbos involved with the act. The Gemara mentions the Melachah of Bishul, but it could have mentioned Netilas Neshamah as well.
</p><p>
The Rashba adds, however, that the wording of the Beraisa (and the verse) implies that the prohibition being discussed is that of making a fire and burning the lead, not the prohibition against killing on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Perhaps the intention of the verse is different, and it does not intend to teach that the Aseh of Sereifah does not override the Lo Ta'aseh of Hav'arah. One would <i>not</i> have thought that a Jew may execute a guilty Bas Kohen on Shabbos, such that a verse is needed to teach that he may not perform the execution. Rather, one would have thought that a Jew is permitted to heat the lead with which a <i>Nochri</i> will execute the Bas Kohen on Shabbos. The verse teaches that even the burning of the lead is prohibited and may not be done by a Jew on Shabbos. Accordingly, the Gemara's question is logical. The Gemara asks why one would have thought that <i>burning the lead</i> is permitted on Shabbos, when that act constitutes not only a transgression of Hav'arah but also a transgression of Bishul, which is punishable with Kares.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS EXECUTION PERMITTED ON 'SHABBOS'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Simi bar Ashi):</font></b> The Tana did not think that 
          execution overrides Shabbos because an Aseh overrides a 
          Lav. Rather, a Kal va'Chomer suggested this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Avodah (in the Mikdash) is severe, it overrides 
               Shabbos. Execution overrides Avodah - 'From My 
               Mizbe'ach you will take him to die'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Avodah overrides Shabbos, all the more so 
               execution does!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did the Tana say (Suggestion #2) 'Perhaps 
          it does not override'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Burial of a Mes Mitzvah (a Mes with no one else 
          to bury it) disproves the Kal va'Chomer. It overrides 
          Avodah, but it is not Docheh Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The Tana reconsidered and suggested (Suggestion #3) that 
          burial of a Mes Mitzvah should override Shabbos from a 
          Kal va'Chomer:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Avodah overrides Shabbos, and we learn from 
               'Ul'Achoso' that burial of a Mes Mitzvah overrides 
               Avodah (someone heading to offer Korban Pesach may 
               not interrupt to bury his sister, but he interrupts 
               to bury a Mes Mitzvah, even though he will not be 
               able to offer Pesach afterwards)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Therefore, 'Do not burn...' is needed to teach that 
               execution is not Docheh Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> First, the Tana thought that execution 
          overrides Shabbos just like an Aseh overrides a Lav. Why 
          did he think that execution might not override Shabbos?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We find that an Aseh overrides a simple Lav, but 
          not one that has Kares.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He later thought that an Aseh overrides a Lav even 
               though a Lav is more severe. If so, even if it is 
               much more severe (i.e. Kares)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Therefore, we need 'Do not kindle...' to forbid 
               execution on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to question 5:b Daf 3b):</font></b> If not for 'Aleha', 
          one might have thought that the Isur of Eshes Ach was 
          part of a Klal (the category of Arayos), and the special 
          law taught about it (it is permitted for Yibum) applies 
          to the entire Klal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> An example of something that was part of 
               a Klal, and a special law was taught about it is 'A 
               Tamei person that will eat Shelamim'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Shelamim is in the Klal of Kodshim. The Torah 
                    specified (Kares for a Tamei person that eats) 
                    Shelamim to equate all Kodshim to it. It is 
                    Kodshei Mizbe'ach, so too (Kares for eating 
                    b'Tum'ah is only for) all Kodshei Mizbe'ach, 
                    but not Bedek ha'Bayis.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Here, also, Eshes Ach is in the Klal of Arayos. It 
               was singled out to be permitted (for Yibum. If not 
               for Aleha,) one would think that all Arayos are 
               permitted (for Yibum).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The comparison is improper! In the Beraisa, 
          the Klal and Perat (specific case) are both forbidden. 
          Here, the Klal is forbidden, and the Perat is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, our case is a law that was part of a 
          Klal, and was given a new law. It does not retain the 
          other laws of the Klal unless the Torah specifically says 
          so:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a law was part of a Klal, and was 
               given a new law, it does not retain the other laws 
               of the Klal unless the Torah specifically says so.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'He will slaughter (Asham) where Chatas 
               and Olah are slaughtered...<i>Asham is like Chatas</i>' - 
               why is this needed? (It already says that they are 
               slaughtered in the same place!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Since the Asham of a Metzora has a new law, 
               some of its blood is put on the right thumb and toe 
               (and ear of the Metzora), one might have thought 
               that its blood and Chelev need not be put on the 
               Mizbe'ach;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HOW THE 'ASEH' OF YIBUM OVERRIDES THE 'LO TA'ASEH' OF 'ESHES ACH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara earlier (3b) teaches that the source for the rule that the Mitzvah of Yibum does not override the prohibition of Arayos (other than that of 'Eshes Ach') is the verse, 'Aleha' (Vayikra 18:18). The Gemara there asks why a verse is needed to teach this; why would one have thought that the Mitzvah of Yibum overrides the prohibition of Arayos?
</p><p>
The Gemara commences a lengthy attempt to find a source that, in general, an Aseh <i>overrides</i> a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares, and thus the verse of 'Aleha' is needed to teach that the Aseh of Yibum does <i>not</i> override the Lo Ta'aseh of Arayos (which are punishable with Kares).
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that an Aseh does <i>not</i> override a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares. Consequently, the Gemara searches for a reason for why one would have thought that the Mitzvah of Yibum should override the Lo Ta'aseh of Arayos such that a verse is needed to teach that it does not override the Lo Ta'aseh of Arayos.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara not learn from the case of Yibum that an Aseh <i>does</i> override a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares? The Torah states that one is permitted to marry his brother's wife in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Yibum, even though marrying one's brother's wife ('Eshes Ach') is punishable with Kares. The Gemara should learn from there that an Aseh <i>does</i> override a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares! Consequently, another verse ('Aleha') is needed to teach that in the case of Yibum with any other Ervah, the Aseh does <i>not</i> override the Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares. Why does the Gemara not give this answer?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (4a, DH Lo Ta'aseh) explains that nothing can be derived from the verse which teaches that the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is pushed aside for the Mitzvah of Yibum. Nothing can be learned from there because the Mitzvah of Yibum can never be performed, under any circumstances, without overriding the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach.' (This is called 'Mitzvaso b'Kach' -- the Mitzvas Aseh can be performed <i>only</i> by overriding a Lo Ta'aseh.) The Gemara cannot derive from this case that in all other situations in which an Aseh conflicts with a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares that the Aseh overrides the Lo Ta'aseh, because in all other cases there are circumstances in which the Aseh can be done <i>without</i> overriding the Lo Ta'aseh.
</p><p>
<b>RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN</b> Hy'd (in <b>KOVETZ HE'OROS</b> 9:1) explains that Tosfos means to say that this is a <i>Pircha</i> to the suggestion that the law of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kares' be learned from Yibum through a Binyan Av. That is, Yibum differs from all other cases of an Aseh which conflicts with a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares, because in the case of Yibum the Mitzvah can <i>never</i> be done without overriding the Lo Ta'aseh. An example of such a Pircha is found in Menachos (5b).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>YAD RAMAH</b> (Sanhedrin 53b) suggests a different approach. Since Yibum can be done only with an 'Eshes Ach,' it is clear that the Torah never prohibited 'Eshes Ach' in the first place in a situation of Yibum. (That is, the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is 'Hutrah' and not 'Dechuyah.') This is different from all other cases in which an Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh, in which the Lo Ta'aseh remains in force but the Aseh is deemed more important and pushes it aside. In the case of Yibum, there is no Lo Ta'aseh of 'Eshes Ach' whatsoever. This is why the Gemara cannot derive from the Mitzvah of Yibum that -- in all other cases -- an Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares.
</p><p>
That the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is not present at all ('Hutrah') in a situation of Yibum is clear from a number of laws of Yibum.
</p><p>
For example, the law is that when the surviving brother has lived with the Yevamah once and thereby fulfilled the Mitzvah of Yibum, he is permitted to remain intimate with her ('Bi'ah Sheniyah'), despite the fact that she was once married to his brother ('Eshes Ach'). Clearly, the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is entirely rescinded in a situation of Yibum. In contrast, the Gemara (20b) says that in a case in which the Yevamah is prohibited to the Yavam by a Lo Ta'aseh, although the Mitzvah of Yibum overrides the Lo Ta'aseh the Yavam must divorce her immediately after the act and he is not permitted to be with her again. 
</p><p>
Similarly, the law is that if a Yavam divorces the Yevamah after he performs Yibum with her, he is permitted to remarry her (as long as no other man has married her in the interim). If the Mitzvah of Yibum merely suspends, temporarily, the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach,' then why is he permitted to remarry her? The prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is present, and no Mitzvah is fulfilled by remarrying her. The Yad Ramah explains that the Torah does not prohibit an 'Eshes Ach' at all in a situation of Yibum, and therefore she is completely permitted to him even after the Mitzvah has been fulfilled. (The Gemara itself demonstrates this difference between a prohibition which is suspended only temporarily, 'Dechuyah,' and a prohibition which is absolutely annulled, 'Hutrah.' The Gemara (7b) says, 'Ho'il v'Ishteri, Ishteri' -- once the prohibition has become permitted, it becomes permitted absolutely so that other prohibitions related to it also become permitted.)
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> (in <b>TORAS HA'ADAM</b>, cited by the Kovetz He'oros ibid.), the <b>RASHBA</b> in Kidushin (21b), the <b>RITVA</b> here, and the <b>RA'AVAD</b> in Tamid (end of 27a) also follow this approach. They write with regard to Yibum and other Mitzvos that the annulment of a prohibition which is 'Hutrah' is permanent, while the annulment of a prohibition which is 'Dechuyah' is only temporary.
</p><p>
The Yad Ramah's understanding seems more logical that Tosfos'. Why does Tosfos consider Yibum a case of an Aseh that overrides a Lo Ta'aseh? If Yibum is permitted only because the Mitzvas Aseh overrides the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach,' why is the brother permitted to stay married to his deceased brother's wife? Once he has lived with her for the first time, he has fulfilled the Mitzvah of Yibum and there no longer is a Mitzvas Aseh to override the Lo Ta'aseh of 'Eshes Ach.' He should be required to divorce her, as the Gemara says later (20b)! Moreover, according to Tosfos, why is he permitted to remarry her once he divorces her? The prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' should prohibit him from remarrying her, since he will not fulfill any Mitzvah by doing so. (See <b>KEREN ORAH</b> to 3b.)
</p><p>
Apparently, Tosfos understands that it is unacceptable to suggest that the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is 'Hutrah' and does not apply at all to a Yevamah. It is clear from the Gemara that the prohibition <i>does</i> remain, and it is suspended only at the moment the Yavam performs the Mitzvah of Yibum. This is clear from the Gemara later (10b) in which Reish Lakish states that after one of the brothers marries one of the wives of the deceased brother, the other brothers of the Yavam remain prohibited to the other wives of the deceased with an Isur Kares, since the Torah never removed the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' from them.
</p><p>
The opinion of Aba Shaul later in Yevamos (39b) provides further support for the view of Tosfos. Aba Shaul maintains that one who performs the Mitzvah of Yibum with ulterior motives 'is considered as though he lives with an Ervah.' If the Torah permits this woman to the Yavam and entirely annuls the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach,' why should the Yavam's motives affect the allowance to marry her? She is not an Ervah at all! (See Insights to Yevamos 40:1.)
</p><p>
For these reasons, Tosfos understands that Yibum <i>is</i> a case of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh.' The reason why 'Bi'ah Sheniyah' is permitted (and the Yavam is not required to divorce her immediately after the first act), and the reason why he may remarry the Yevamah after he divorces her, is because the Torah extends the allowance to marry the Yevamah <i>after</i> the initial suspension of the prohibition through the Mitzvah of Yibum (see 8b, and <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Melamed). While the initial act is one of 'Dechiyah,' afterwards the Torah removes the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' entirely so that the Yavam may raise a family with his brother's wife.
</p><p>
The other Rishonim apparently disagree and maintain that the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' indeed is removed from all of the other brothers at the moment their brother dies and Zikah begins. (These issues are addressed further in Insights to Yevamos 10:1, 20:3, 35:2, and 41:1.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Therefore, 'Asham is like Chatas' obligates putting 
               the blood and Chachamim of Asham on the Mizbe'ach, 
               like Chatas.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> If not for this verse, one would say that the laws 
               of other Korbanos do not apply to Asham, only what 
               the Torah specified regarding Asham.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Also in our case, Eshes Ach was permitted, not other 
               relatives (so 'Aleha' is not needed)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (to question 5:b, 3b):</font></b> Rather, we would have 
          thought to learn from a Mah Matzinu (precedent) from 
          Eshes Ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like Eshes Ach does Yibum, also Achos Ishto 
               (his sister's wife).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> These are different. Regarding Eshes Ach, there 
          is only one Isur. Regarding Achos Ishto, there are two!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that once there is 
          permission, even more Isurim are permitted.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE LENIENCY CAUSES ANOTHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source to allow additional things?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> Normally, a Tevul Yom (one who was 
          Tovel today, he is still slightly Tamei until nightfall) 
          may not enter Har ha'Bayis. However, if Erev Pesach was 
          the eighth day (of Taharah) of a Metzora, and he saw an 
          emission that day and immersed, he may enter (to have Dam 
          ha'Asham put on him to complete his Taharah so he can 
          offer Korban Pesach). It is better that an Aseh (Korban 
          Peach) punishable by Kares override an Aseh without Kares 
          (Temei'im must leave the Mikdash).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> There is not even an Aseh of the 
               Torah (for a Tevul Yom to leave)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'Yehoshafat stood up... in front of <i>the new 
               courtyard</i>.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is called this because they made 
               new laws. They said that a Tevul Yom may not enter 
               Machaneh Levi until nightfall.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Ula):</font></b> (A Metzora must enter his ear, thumb 
               and toe into the Azarah to receive the blood. 
               Mid'Oraisa, a Tevul Yom may not enter the Azarah.) 
               Why is this permitted for this Tevul Yom?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Ula):</font></b> Since the Torah allows him to 
               partially enter even though some Tum'ah remains from 
               his Tzara'as, it is permitted even if some Tum'ah 
               also remains from his emission.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY THE TORAH HAD TO PROHIBIT 'YIBUM' WITH 'ARAYOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Our case is unlike Ula's case!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Granted, it is similar if Reuven married Rachel, 
               then his brother Shimon married her sister Leah, and 
               Reuven died. Since Eshes Ach is permitted, also 
               Achos Ishto would be permitted (if not for 'Aleha').
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> If Shimon married before Reuven, the Isur of 
          Achos Ishto came first (and it is not permitted)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> Even when Reuven married before Shimon, the 
          comparison is good only if Reuven died before Shimon 
          married. In this case, Rachel was permitted in the 
          interim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But if the Reuven died after Shimon married Leah, 
               Rachel was never permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Surely Ula agree that that if a Metzora had an 
               emission on the night of his eighth day he may not 
               enter his thumb into the Mikdash, since there was 
               never a time when he could bring his Korban (and 
               enter it)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, 'Aleha' is needed only for the case when 
          Reuven married and died before Shimon married.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (to Question 5:b):</font></b> If not for 'Aleha', we would 
          learn from a Hekesh that all Arayos may do Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yonah):</font></b> 'All... will get Kares' - all Arayos are 
               equated to Eshes Ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that just like Eshes Ach is 
               permitted (for Yibum), all Arayos are permitted. 
               'Aleha' teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti):</font></b> The other Arayos can be 
          equated to Eshes Ach, or to Achos Ishto. Why do we equate 
          them (above, Daf 3b) to Achos Ishto and not to Eshes Ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Ravina):</font></b> We equate to be stringent, not to be 
          lenient.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Ravina):</font></b> Each of the other Arayos has two 
          Isurim (itself, and Eshes Ach). It is better to learn 
          from Achos Ishto, which also has two Isurim, and not from 
          Eshes Ach, which has only one.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ALEHA' IS NOT NEEDED TO FORBID 'ERVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #5 (to Question 5:b - Rava):</font></b> We do not need a 
          verse to forbid the Ervah, for an Aseh does not override 
          a Lav with Kares;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Aleha is needed to forbid the Tzarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We need a verse to teach that the Ervah is 
          forbidden!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'This only teaches me about her (the 
               Ervah)... '
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This was said only to show the source of the Isur 
          of the Tzarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> 'This only teaches about them (the 
          Arayos)... '
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This was said only to show the source of the Isur 
          of their Tzaros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> 'He will take <i>her</i> and do 
          Yibum <i>(to) her</i>' - these (exclude, and thereby) forbid 
          Tzaros and Arayos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It should say 'the Tzaros <i>of</i> Arayos.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Two words were expounded (surely, we learn two 
          laws)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> One teaches about the Ervah, and one 
               about the Tzarah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, both teach about the Tzarah. One forbids her 
          in the situation of Yibum, and one permits her not in the 
          situation of Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How do we know this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'He will do Yibum <i>(to) her</i>' - the Isur (of 
               the Tzarah) is only in the situation of Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Mishnah supports Rava.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It teaches that 15 Arayos exempt their Tzaros. It 
               does not need to say that the Arayos themselves are 
               exempt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Surely, Ervah does not require a verse because 
          an Aseh does not override a Lav with Kares. Similarly, we 
          do not need 'Aleha' to forbid the Tzarah ('Litzror' 
          forbids her like Ervah, and there is Kares for all 
          Arayos).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ALEHA' PERMITS THE 'TZARAH' OUTSIDE OF 'YIBUM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (Rav Acha bar Bivi): Indeed, Rava does not use 
          'Aleha' to forbid the Tzarah, rather, to permit her when 
          there was no fall to Yibum!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PERFORMING YIBUM AGAINST THE WILL OF THE WOMAN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara derives from the verse, 'v'Yibmah' (Devarim 25:5), that one may perform Yibum against the will of the woman. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ba'al Korchah) explains that this means that even if the brother marries her against her will, the marriage takes effect 'with regard to Yerushah (inheriting her possessions upon her death), Tum'ah (the allowance to bury her and become Tamei if he is a Kohen), and with regard to all matters, she is his wife.'
</p><p>
Why does Rashi specify that the verse means that the marriage done against her will takes effect for all matters of Kinyanim (acquisitions)? Rashi should explain instead that it takes effect for all of the laws of Ishus, marriage. The Gemara says merely that the Yavam fulfills the Mitzvah of Yibum even though he did the act without her consent, and now he must give her a Get if she wants to remarry; Chalitzah no longer suffices, since the act of Yibum was performed. Why does Rashi describe this Halachah in terms of Kinyanim, and not in terms of fulfilling the Mitzvah of Yibum? (<b>HAGAHOS MAHARSHAM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi is bothered by a question. Why does the Gemara need the verse of 'v'Yibmah' to teach that the Mitzvah of Yibum is fulfilled against the will of the woman? No verse is necessary to teach this law, because the verse that introduces the Mitzvah of Chalitzah states explicitly, 'Im Lo Yachpotz <i>ha'Ish</i>...' -- 'If <i>the man</i> does not desire to marry his Yevamah...' (Devarim 25:7). The verse clearly makes the fulfillment of the Mitzvah dependant upon the <i>man's</i> will; if <i>he</i> does not want to perform Yibum, then they perform Chalitzah, and if he wants to perform Yibum, then they perform Yibum regardless of what the woman wants. Why, then, is the verse of 'v'Yibmah' necessary to teach that he fulfills the Mitzvah against her will?
</p><p>
Rashi answers that one might have thought that although the Mitzvah of Yibum may be performed against her will, such an act of involuntary Yibum affects only the laws of marriage but has no bearing on matters of Kinyanim. Rashi explains that the Gemara finds a source ('v'Yibmah') which proves that even with regard to Kinyanim, Yibum without the woman's consent is effective.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we learn this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> It says '(Litzror) Aleha' - she is prohibited 
          only in the situation of '(Yevamah Yavo) Aleha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> Perhaps the Ervah herself is 
          permitted not in the situation of Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> A Kal va'Chomer refutes this. Ervah is 
          forbidden even in the situation of Yibum, all the more so 
          when there is no Mitzvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> The Tzarah disproves this. She 
          is forbidden in the situation of Yibum, and otherwise 
          permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> The Torah wrote 'In her lifetime' to 
          disprove this reasoning. She (Achos Ishto, the wife's 
          sister) is forbidden in her (the wife's) entire lifetime.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We need this verse to permit Achos Ishto after 
          the wife dies!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is learned from 'Ishah <i>El</i> Achosah' (she is 
          forbidden only when they are together;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it written only this, one might have thought 
               that she is permitted after the wife is divorced. 
               Therefore, also 'In her lifetime' is needed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Huna bar Tachlifa) - Question:</font></b> It says 
          'Ishah El Achosah Lo Sikach <i>Litzror</i>' (both are 
          forbidden). The verse concludes 'Legalos Ervasah 
          (singular).'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Both are forbidden in a situation of Yibum. 
               Elsewhere, the Ervah is forbidden and the Tzarah is 
               permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps in a situation of Yibum, the Ervah is 
          forbidden and the Tzarah is permitted, and elsewhere, 
          they are both forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If so, the Torah would have omitted 'Aleha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> How do we know that 'Aleha' forbids? 
          Perhaps it permits!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Ishah El Achosah Lo Sikach' forbids both, not in 
               the situation of Yibum. Regarding Yibum, both are 
               permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If so, we could not fulfill 'Legalos Ervasah 
          (singular)';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In the situation of Yibum, both are permitted. Not 
               in the situation of Yibum, both are forbidden!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>REBBI'S 'DERASHAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> 'He will take <i>her</i> and do Yibum <i>(to) 
          her</i>' - these (exclude, and thereby) forbid Tzaros and 
          Arayos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> The verse does not discuss Tzaros and 
          Arayos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> We derive Tzaros from Litzror!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (to Question #2):</font></b> Rebbi uses Litzror for R. 
          Shimon's teaching (28b, that two sisters who fall to 
          Yibum (from different brothers) are exempt).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (to Question #1):</font></b> It says 'He will take <i>her</i>' to 
          teach that when there are two women to be taken 
          (Yevamos), and the Yavam can take whichever he wants, 
          they are permitted. If not, both are forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  'He will do Yibum <i>(to) her</i>' - in the situation of 
          Yibum, the Tzarah is forbidden. Elsewhere, she is 
          permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do Chachamim learn from 'He will take 
          <i>her</i>'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches R. Yosi bar Chanina's law, that 
          (after Yibum) the Yavam can divorce her with a Get 
          (document) and (if he wants) remarry her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'He will do Yibum <i>(to) her</i>' teaches that he may do 
               so against her will.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Rebbi learns R. Yosi bar Chanina's law from 'For a wife'. 
          He learns that Yibum works against her will from 'Yevamah 
          Yavo Aleha'. (Malbim - elsewhere the Torah discusses 
          Bi'ah <i>El</i> Ishah, denoting equality. Here it says Aleha, 
          to show that he is dominant.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does Rebbi learn from Aleha?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> Beis Din brings Par Helam Davar (a 
          Korban for a mistaken ruling which caused most of Yisrael 
          to transgress) only if they permitted something 
          punishable by Kares if done b'Mezid and Chatas if done 
          (by an individual) b'Shogeg);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Likewise, a Kohen (Gadol) Mashi'ach (anointed with 
               Shemen ha'Mishchah) brings a Par only for a 
               transgression due to such a mistake.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Also, they bring for a mistaken ruling about 
               idolatry only for something punishable by Kares 
               b'Mezid and Chatas b'Shogeg.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'KORBAN' FOR A MISTAKEN RULING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> For any Mitzvah punishable by Kares or Chatas, 
          if one transgressed b'Shogeg:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A (regular) individual brings a female goat or lamb;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Nasi brings a male goat;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A Mashi'ach or Beis Din brings a bull.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  For idolatry, an individual, Nasi or Mashi'ach brings a 
          goat (a Chatas). The Tzibur (Beis Din) brings a bull for 
          an Olah and a goat for a Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah 
          from 'V'Nod'ah ha'Chatas Asher Chat'u Aleha';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It also says 'Aleha' regarding Achos Ishto, which is 
               punishable by Kares and Chatas. Here also, we 
               discuss something punishable by Kares and Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This answers only for the Tzibur. What is the 
          source regarding a Mashi'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'For the guilt of the nation' equates him to the 
          Tzibur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We learn an individual and Nasi from a Gezeirah 
               Shavah 'Mitzvos-Mitzvos'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> For idolatry they bring only for something 
          punishable by Kares and Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  A Gezeirah Shavah 'Einei-Einei' teaches this law for the 
          Tzibur;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  We learn an individual, Nasi and Mashi'ach from 'And if 
          one Nefesh'. Each of these is a Nefesh!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'And' shows that we learn the latter Parashah from 
               the previous one.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'CHACHAMIM'S' SOURCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do Chachamim learn this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They learn like R. Yehoshua taught to his son, 
          '<i>Torah</i> Achas Yihyeh Lachem la'Oseh bi'Shgagah; 
          veha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh b'Yad Ramah (Es Hash-m Hu 
          Megadef )';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (Regarding Korban,) the entire Torah is equated to 
               idolatry (Megadef), which is punishable by Kares and 
               Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This teaches about an individual, Nasi and 
          Mashi'ach, for regular sins and idolatry;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> How do we know the law of the Tzibur regarding 
               idolatry?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> '<i>And</i> if a Nefesh' equates the Tzibur to an 
          individual, which is written after it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we know the law of the Tzibur regarding 
          other Mitzvos?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah 'me'Einei 
          -me'Einei.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does Rebbi learn from 'Torah Achas'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> The Torah distinguished between 
          individuals and a multitude (a city that served idolatry 
          b'Mezid). Individuals are stoned, so their money is 
          saved. An Ir ha'Nidachas is killed by the sword, so their 
          money is destroyed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps their Korbanos are different 
               (for Shogeg)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Torah Achas Yihyeh Lachem.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chilkiyah):</font></b> If not for this verse, a city 
          would bring a different Korban. What would they bring?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They cannot bring a bull, for the Tzibur brings this 
               for other Mitzvos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They cannot bring a female sheep, for an individual 
               brings this for other Mitzvos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> They cannot bring a goat, for a Nasi brings this for 
               other Mitzvos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> They cannot bring a bull for an Olah and a goat for 
               a Chatas, for the Tzibur brings this for idolatry!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> They cannot bring a female goat, for an individual 
               brings this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> The Tzibur brings a bull for an Olah and a 
          goat for a Chatas for a mistaken ruling. One might have 
          thought that a city brings the reverse for idolatry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> One might have thought that they must bring a 
          different Korban, but they have no solution!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Torah Achas Yihyeh Lachem la'Oseh bi'Shgagah' 
               teaches that this is not so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN ADDITIONAL CASE IN THE 'MISHNAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Levi):</font></b> Why didn't the Mishnah teach a 16th 
          case?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebbi:</font></b> It seems that he (Levi) has no brain in his skull.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Do you think that it should teach Imo Anusas Aviv (a 
               woman who falls to Yibum to her son born out of 
               wedlock)? R. Yehudah and Chachamim disagree about 
               this, and the Tana does not list cases subject to 
               dispute.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Akiva and Chachamim argue about Chayavei 
          Lavin and Arayos mid'Rabanan, yet the Mishnah teaches 
          them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> In our Perek it does not teach such cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Our Perek teaches that Beis Shamai permit the 
          Tzaros to the brothers, and Beis Hillel forbid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Beis Shamai is not considered a dissenting 
          opinion against Beis Hillel (since the Halachah is always 
          follows Beis Hillel).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Shimon and Chachamim argue about Eshes Achiv 
          she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo (when the Yavam was born after his 
          brother died), yet the Mishnah teaches them!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE PUNISHMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL IDOLATER COMPARED WITH THE PUNISHMENT OF AN 'IR HA'NIDACHAS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which states, 'Individuals who serve Avodah Zarah are punished with Sekilah (death by stoning); therefore, their money is saved. Members of an entire community (an Ir ha'Nidachas) who serve Avodah Zarah are punished with Sayif (death by sword); therefore, their money is [also] destroyed.'
</p><p>
What is the logical correlation (implied by the word 'therefore') between administering the punishment of Sekilah, a more severe punishment, and allowing the executed man's family to keep his possessions, a leniency? Why is the family of a person who was put to death with Sekilah permitted to keep his possessions, while the family of a person who was put to death with Sayif is not permitted to keep his possessions?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (end of <b>SHENOS ELIYAHU</b> to Zera'im) explains that there is a basic difference between the way the Torah relates to an individual who served Avodah Zarah alone and the way the Torah relates to a city of people who served Avodah Zarah collectively. An individual who served Avodah Zarah is treated like any other sinner; he is punished with Sekilah, but his money is not destroyed, because in all cases of Chayavei Misas Beis Din, the possessions of the person who was killed by the court go to his heirs.
</p><p>
In contrast, when an entire city served Avodah Zarah, the Torah views them like Nochrim and treats them as such. As far as the punishment for their sin is concerned, they have forfeited the status of Yisrael. The form of punishment administered to Nochrim who are Chayavei Misas Beis Din is always death by the sword (Sanhedrin 56a), and their possessions are rendered ownerless (Bava Kama 38a). Therefore, when an Ir ha'Nidachas is punished, its inhabitants are killed by the sword and their possessions become ownerless and may be destroyed.
</p><p>
This also explains why an Ir ha'Nidachas may be punished without having been warned with Hasra'ah first, as the Rambam implies. No Hasra'ah is necessary to execute a Nochri who transgressed one of the Seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach (Sanhedrin 57b).
</p><p>
The <b>MARGOLIYOS HA'YAM</b> (Sanhedrin 111b) provides additional insights into this explanation. He writes in the name of <b>RAV AVRAHAM BINYAMIN KLUGER</b> that there are two types of death sentences issued by Beis Din. The first type is given in order to provide the transgressor with atonement. The second type is given in order to eradicate evil from the world. This is why Nochrim receive the same punishment (Sayif) regardless of which of the Seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach they transgress, while a Jew sometimes receives a stricter punishment (such as for idol worship) and sometimes a more lenient one. Since the purpose of executing the Nochri for his transgression is to eradicate the evil Nochri from the world, it does not matter which punishment he receives. A Jew, however, who aspires to eternal life in Olam ha'Ba, must receive the punishment which will adequately atone for his sin. Therefore, he may need to receive a harsher punishment.
</p><p>
The same applies in the case of an Ir ha'Nidachas. The people of an Ir ha'Nidachas have no share in Olam ha'Ba (Sanhedrin 111b; see Insights there). Therefore, they receive the same punishment as Nochrim receive, since the purpose of their punishment is not to provide them with atonement but to eradicate the evil from the world. Moreover, the property of such sinful people is also unfit to remain in the world.
</p><p>
In contrast, an individual idol worshipper -- although he committed a grave sin -- still receives atonement from his death because he repents before Beis Din. Although he receives a harsh death as atonement for his sin, his death achieves atonement. Consequently, after his death he is considered to be free of sin and thus his property is permitted to be used.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MARGOLIYOS HA'YAM</b> cites another explanation. When all of the residents of a city strayed from the proper path, it may be assumed that most were led astray by a few leaders. Every individual in the city is not necessarily absolutely evil to his core. However, the property of all of the residents of the city (including the righteous, according to Rebbi Shimon in Sanhedrin) is burned because it presumably was financial concerns that led these people to reside in such an evil city.
</p><p>
In contrast, an individual who worships idols is intrinsically evil. He conducts himself in a way contrary to the logical and experiential truth of the oneness and omnipotence of Hash-m. Therefore, his body must receive a harsher death. There is no reason to condemn his assets, however, which had nothing to do with his transgression.
</p><p>
This also explains why, in order to punish the idol worshippers of the Ir ha'Nidachas, all of the residents must have lived inside the city. The only reason the people of the city receive a more lenient death is because of the mitigating factor that it was difficult for them to do the right thing in the face of such strong pressure from around them. If the people who persuaded them to serve Avodah Zarah were not from that town, then the sinners deserve the harsher punishment reserved for an individual idol worshipper. (Y. Montrose, Y. Shaw) 
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE SPECIAL KORBAN OFFERED BY AN 'IR HA'NIDACHAS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi derives from the verse, 'Torah Achas' (Bamidbar 15:16), that an entire city that served Avodah Zarah unintentionally (b'Shogeg) brings the same Korban as an individual who served Avodah Zarah. The Gemara says that without this verse, one would have assumed that they bring different Korbanos, since intentional sinners in an Ir ha'Nidachas receive a different punishment (Sayif, and not Sekilah). The Gemara asks which Korban would they have brought without this verse, as every type of Korban is already taken by a different type of sinner.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara assert that every type of Korban is already taken? When the Gemara demonstrates how each type of Korban is already reserved for a different type of sinner, it omits a number of Korbanos from its list which are <i>not</i> used already by any other type of sinner, such as a lamb and a ram! (<b>TOSFOS</b>)
</p><p>
Moreover, why does the the Gemara not suggest simply that without the verse of 'Torah Achas,' the unique Korban which the Ir ha'Nidachas brings is a Korban that is not brought by an individual who commits a <i>sin of Avodah Zarah</i>? Why must their Korban be an entirely unique Korban which is not brought by <i>any</i> sinner? Perhaps their Korban is a Kisbah (she-lamb) or Se'irah (she-goat), the Korban reserved for an individual who commits a sin other than Avodah Zarah. Since an individual who commits the sin of Avodah Zarah brings a different type of Korban, when an entire city sins with Avodah Zarah they should bring the Korban which an individual brings for <i>other</i> sins. (<b>RITVA</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Rishonim answer that the Gemara assumes that the 'new' Korban that an Ir ha'Nidachas might have been required to bring is one that is brought <i>only</i> for a sin (which excludes a lamb and ram). Their Korban cannot be an animal which is never designated to be brought for a sin. On the other hand, the Gemara also assumes that the Korban brought by an Ir ha'Nidachas must be different from any Korban brought for any other sin. If the Ir ha'Nidachas brings a Korban that is already reserved for a another sin, their Korban is not unique. Consequently, they cannot bring a unique Korban that is not reserved for any other sin, because no new Korban may be brought for a sin! This is the meaning of the Gemara: the statement that an Ir ha'Nidachas must bring a different type of Korban is a paradox. (See <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b>.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Shimon agrees in a case when the Yavam was 
          born before his older brother did Yibum (and afterwards 
          the older brother died).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> R. Oshaya said that R. Shimon argues even in 
          this case!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Oshaya was refuted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (A Mishnah (26a) forbids two sisters who fell 
          to Yibum from different brothers to do Yibum. Each is 
          Achos Zekukaso, the sister of someone awaiting Yibum with 
          the Yavam. If a sister is Ervah to the Yavam, her sister 
          may do Yibum. If there are two surviving brothers and 
          each sister is an Ervah to a different brother, each is 
          permitted to the other brother. Rav and a Beraisa recited 
          by R. Chiya teach that this can occur for each case (of 
          Ervah in our Mishnah, e.g. daughter-in-law. I.e. one 
          sister is Asur to Shimon (she is his daughter-in-law) and 
          permitted to Yehudah, and the other sister is Asur to 
          Yehudah (his daughter-in-law) and permitted to Shimon. 
          The sister (of the Ervah) may do Yibum or Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Yehudah applies this teaching to the Arayos 
               starting with a mother-in-law, but not in the first 
               six cases. This is because the case of Bito (his 
               daughter) arises only through rape, not through 
               marriage.  (If the daughters of Shimon and Yehudah 
               are sisters, they must have the same mother (Dinah). 
               If Shimon married Dinah, Yehudah can marry her only 
               if she falls to Yibum, but in our case Shimon and 
               his daughter are alive.) Our Tana does not discuss 
               such cases.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Abaye applied it even to Bito, even though it arises 
               only through rape.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Abaye did not apply it to Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah 
               b'Olamo. This is because it arises only according to 
               R. Shimon, but not according to Chachamim, and we do 
               not discuss disputes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Safra includes Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo. 
               The case arises with six brothers, according to R. 
               Shimon. (This is the question against Rebbi: we must 
               discuss disputes to apply the Beraisa's rules in all 
               cases!)</font></b>
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  A way to remember the case is 'death, birth, 
                    Yibum; death, birth, Yibum'. (Reuven died, 
                    Shimon was born, Yisachar did Yibum to Esther 
                    (Eshes Reuven), Levi died, Yehudah was born, 
                    Zevulun did Yibum to Devorah (Eshes Levi). If 
                    Yisachar and Zevulun now die, Esther is 
                    forbidden (Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo) to 
                    Shimon but permitted to Yehudah. Devorah is 
                    forbidden to Yehudah but permitted to Shimon.)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE APPLICATION OF REBBI CHIYA'S RULING TO THE CASES OF THE MISHNAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara says that the cases in the Mishnah (2a) are all cases of Nisu'in (in which the woman is an Ervah to the surviving brother through a legitimate marital relationship) and not cases of Onsin (where the woman is an Ervah through rape). Consequently, Rebbi Chiya's statement cannot apply to the Mishnah's case of 'Bito' (his daughter). The logic behind this is as follows:
</p><p>
Rebbi Chiya states, 'v'Kulan Ani Korei ba'Hen...' -- it is possible to apply the following Halachah to all of the cases in the Mishnah: Two sisters married two brothers, and those two brothers died. One of the sisters is an Ervah to one of the remaining brothers (Levi), but is not an Ervah to the other remaining brother (Yehudah), while the other sister is an Ervah to Yehudah but not to Levi. In that case, each sister may do Yibum or Chalitzah with the brother to whom she is permitted, and there is no problem of 'Eshes Zekukaso,' since the other woman is not considered Zekukah to the man to whom she is prohibited.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that it is not possible for this statement to be made about the Mishnah's case of 'his daughter' whom he bore through marriage. Levi's daughter whom he bore through marriage could not have a sister who was born to his brother, Yehudah (for his wife is not permitted to Yehudah). Rebbi Chiya's statement could apply only to Levi's daughter through rape (whose mother later was raped by Yehudah and bore another daughter).
</p><p>
Rashi here (DH Keivan d'Bito) explains that when the Gemara says that 'it is discussing only Nisu'in, and it is not discussing Onsin,' the Gemara refers to the Mishnah (2a). The Gemara is not saying that <i>Rebbi Chiya</i> is discussing Nisu'in and not Onsin, but that <i>the Mishnah</i> is discussing Nisu'in and not Onsin.
</p><p>
How are the words of Rashi here to be reconciled with the words of Rashi on the Mishnah (2a, DH v'Em Chamoso)? Rashi there writes that 'Bito' in the Mishnah <i>cannot</i> refer to his daughter from his wife, because that would be the same as 'Bas Ishto.' Rather, Rashi says, it must refer to one's daughter through rape, 'Bito me'Anusaso.' Accordingly, the Mishnah <i>is</i> discussing cases of Onsin as well as Nisu'in, in contrast to what the Gemara here says! (<b>TOSFOS</b> 2a, DH Bito)
</p><p>
Moreover, the Gemara here attempts to understand why Rebbi did not want to include the case of 'Imo Anusas Aviv' (one's mother who was raped by, and not married to, his father) in the list of Arayos in the Mishnah which are exempt from Yibum and which release their Tzaros from Yibum. The Gemara here (and on 10a) gives a number of explanations for why Rebbi did not want to include this case.
</p><p>
If it is true that the Mishnah is discussing only cases of Nisu'in and not Onsin, as the Gemara here asserts according to Rashi, then the Gemara should give a very simple answer: Rebbi did not include the case of 'Imo Anusas Aviv' in the Mishnah's list because the Mishnah is not discussing cases of Onsin! The Gemara suggests a number of answers to why the Mishnah does not list 'Anusas Aviv,' but it does not mention this simple answer. (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Many of the Rishonim and Acharonim discuss these questions, but not all of their answers are consistent with the words of Rashi here (see <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> 2a, <b>YASHRESH YAKOV</b>, and others). 
</p><p>
The most straightforward approach seems to be as follows. The Gemara here apparently assumes that not all of the cases in the Mishnah are candidates for the Halachah of Rebbi Chiya, 'Achosah she'Hi Yevimtah.' This is evident from the remarks of Rebbi Yehudah, Abaye, and Rav Safra, who discuss the limitations of this Halachah (that is, to which Arayos in the Mishnah it can be applied and to which it cannot).
</p><p>
The Gemara later (10a), however, evidently has a different approach. The Gemara there says that in order to be included in the Mishnah's list, the case <i>must</i> fit into this category of Rebbi Chiya's Halachah. If it is not a candidate for his Halachah, then it is omitted from the Mishnah's list. The Gemara there apparently revisited its understanding of the statement of Rebbi Chiya.
</p><p>
According to the Gemara's final understanding of Rebbi Chiya -- that the Mishnah lists only cases which fit into this category -- the Mishnah should list <i>only</i> 'Bito me'Anusaso' (one's daughter from rape) and <i>not</i> 'Bito me'Ishto' (one's daughter from marriage), since 'Bito me'Ishto' does not fit into the category of the Halachah of Rebbi Chiya!
</p><p>
Rashi on the Mishnah (2a) therefore explains the Mishnah according to the Gemara's final understanding (10a) of Rebbi Chiya, that applicability to the Halachah of Rebbi Chiya is a criterion for inclusion in the Mishnah. According to this view in the Gemara, why does the Mishnah mention 'Bito' (which implies that she is his daughter through his wife as much as it implies that she is his daughter through rape), if the Halachah of Rebbi Chiya cannot apply to the case of 'Bito'? Rashi answers this question by saying that 'Bito' mentioned in the Mishnah can be understood implicitly as referring only to his daughter from rape (since the Mishnah lists 'Bas Ishto' separately from 'Bito'). The Mishnah does not need to state explicitly that it means 'Bito me'Anusaso' because that is already understood. 
</p><p>
Abaye in the Sugya here, however, follows the view which maintains that applicability to Rebbi Chiya's Halachah is <i>not</i> a criterion for inclusion in the Mishnah. That opinion maintains that the case in the Mishnah refers specifically to 'Bito me'Ishto' (one's daughter from his wife), the normal case of 'Bito.' According to that understanding, Rebbi indeed could have said that the Mishnah's list does not include 'Imo Anusas Aviv' because it does not list cases of Ones (rape), but he mentioned another reason which is just as valid -- the Mishnah does not list cases about which the Tana'im disagreed.
</p><p>
The Gemara later rejects Abaye's view, as well as the notion that Rebbi did not want to list cases about which the Tana'aim disagreed. At that point, why does the Gemara not give the Maharsha's reason for not including 'Imo Anusas Aviv' in the Mishnah -- that the Mishnah does not refer to cases of rape? The answer is that this reasoning is no longer valid; the Gemara at that point maintains that Rebbi Chiya's rule is a criterion for being listed in the Mishnah, and that the Mishnah <i>does</i> refer to 'Bito me'Anusaso.' (This may be the intention of the <b>RASHBA's</b> answer for Rashi on 2a.)
</p><p>
However, one more point remains to be explained. According to Abaye, why does the Mishnah mention 'Bito' if it already mentions 'Bas Ishto'? 'Bas Ishto' includes 'Bito' as well, as Rashi points out in the Mishnah. (For this question, the Rashba (ibid.) offers the somewhat forced answer that 'it is the way of the Tana' to list one prohibition twice if it pertains to two different people.)
</p><p>
The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> (2a) suggests that the answer is that Abaye maintains that the Ervah of 'Bito' is <i>not</i> necessarily included in the category of 'Bas Ishto.' As mentioned earlier (see Insights to Yevamos 2:1), Rashi maintains that after a man's wife passes away, he no longer is prohibited by an Isur Kares to marry her mother (according to Abaye's understanding of Rebbi Akiva's opinion in Yevamos 76b). In the same vein, Rashi maintains that after a man's wife passes away, he no longer is prohibited to her daughter (since her daughter is prohibited by the same verse that prohibits her mother: 'Ervas Ishah u'Vitah Lo Segaleh'). Thus, the Ervah of 'Bito' applies to his daughter even after his wife dies, while the Ervah of 'Bas Ishto' does not. This is why it is necessary for the Mishnah to mention both cases independently!
</p><p>
(This approach also explains why Rashi here writes that Rebbi Chiya's Halachah cannot apply to 'Bito me'Ishto' because the same woman cannot marry the second brother after she was married to the first brother (unless she falls to Yibum, which is not the case here). However, there is another reason Rashi could have mentioned for why Rebbi Chiya's Halachah does not apply to 'Bito me'Ishto': When one of the sisters is 'Bito me'Ishto,' the other sister is 'Bas Ishto' and is not permitted to do Yibum with him or with his brother, as Tosfos writes (DH Bito). Why does Rashi not mention this reason? The answer is that according to Rashi, even if one of the sisters is 'Bito,' the other is <i>not</i> necessarily 'Bas Ishto' according to all opinions, since his wife may have died already, in which case her death removed from the sister the Ervah of 'Bas Ishto.')
</p><p>
This is true only according to Abaye, who maintains that the Mishnah does not include cases about which the Tana'im disagreed. The Mishnah could not include the case of 'Bas Ishto' after the death of the wife, because not all Tana'im consider her to be an Ervah. According to Rav Safra and according to the Gemara's final understanding of Rebbi Chiya's ruling, the Mishnah <i>does</i> include cases about which the Tana'im disagreed. Accordingly, when the Mishnah says 'Bas Ishto,' it includes even 'Bas Ishto' <i>after the death of</i> 'Ishto,' which is an Ervah only according to <i>some</i> Tana'im (Rebbi Yishmael). Hence, there never will be a case of 'Bito' who is not already prohibited due to 'Bas Ishto,' except for the case of 'Bito me'Anusaso.' (M. Kornfeld, based on the Aruch la'Ner)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN 'ERVAH' THAT FALLS TO 'YIBUM' WITH HER SISTER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rebbi disagrees with these rules.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ada):</font></b> Really, Rebbi agrees with these 
          rules. He derided Levi because both rules cannot apply 
          (simultaneously) to Imo Anusas Aviv.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Yakov raped two sisters (and Shimon and Yehudah 
               resulted, and the sisters married other sons of 
               Yakov), we can fulfill two sisters falling to Yibum, 
               but we cannot fulfill that each is permitted to a 
               different brother (she is the mother of one Yavam, 
               and Dodaso of the other (his mother's sister);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he raped two unrelated women, we fulfill that 
               each is permitted to a different brother (the one 
               who is not her son), but they are not sisters.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Rebbi disagrees with these rules. 
          The Mishnah discusses cases of dispute;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi derided Levi for not deducing from the coming 
               Mishnah (#2) that the Tana is R. Yehudah (who 
               forbids a man to a woman raped by his father. We 
               assume that the same Tana taught the entire Perek.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah #2):</font></b> Six Arayos are more severe than these 
               (of the first Mishnah). They can marry only others 
               (but not any of the brothers), therefore their 
               Tzaros are permitted: Imo (the Yavam's mother), his 
               father's wife, his father's sister...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case of Imo?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We cannot say that she was married to his 
                    father, for that is listed second!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, she was raped by his father, and the 
               Mishnah says that she can marry others, but not the 
               brothers!
5	This is like R. Yehudah, who forbids Anusas Aviv. This is why 
     the first Mishnah omitted this case!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Also according to R. Yehudah this may 
          be taught (in the first Mishnah), if he transgressed and 
          married her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Tana does not list cases that come 
          through forbidden marriages.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The case can arise through permitted 
          marriages!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Yakov raped the wife of his son Reuven, and 
               Shimon was born, and Reuven died without children, 
               his widow falls to Yibum to her son.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Since she is forbidden, her Tzarah is also 
               forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Kahana):</font></b> The Tana discusses only cases when 
          the brothers are not the product of Isur.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Still, Levi included this is in his (version of the) 
          Mishnah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Sometimes Shimon's mother exempts her Tzarah, 
               sometimes not. If she was married to the father, she 
               does not exempt the Tzarah. If she was raped by the 
               father and married a brother, she exempts the 
               Tzarah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE STATUS OF THE WIVES AFTER ONE OF THEM PERFORMS CHALITZAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the status of the surviving brothers and the wives (Tzaros) of the deceased brother after Chalitzah is performed by one of the brothers with one of the Tzaros. Reish Lakish maintains that all of the brothers are prohibited to all of the Tzaros with an Isur Kares (the Isur of 'Eshes Ach'), with the exception of the brother and the woman who did Chalitzah, who are prohibited to each other only with a Lav (the Isur of 'Lo Yivneh'). Rebbi Yochanan maintains that they are all prohibited to each other with only a Lav and not with Kares.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains Rebbi Yochanan's reasoning. It does not make sense that one brother (the one who did Chalitzah) should be prohibited to the woman with only a Lav while the other brothers are prohibited to her with an Isur Kares, since they were all equally entitled to do Chalitzah. Rather, the brother who did Chalitzah acted as a Shali'ach on behalf of all the other brothers, and the woman who did Chalitzah acted as a Shali'ach on behalf of all the Tzaros.
</p><p>
It is clear that Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the Isur Kares of 'Eshes Ach' disappears completely in a situation of Yibum, when one brother dies and his wives fall to Yibum (or Chalitzah) to the other brothers. According to Rebbi Yochanan, at exactly what point does the Isur Kares of 'Eshes Ach' of all the wives disappear? Is it removed as soon as the brother dies or only when a surviving brother performs Chalitzah? The words of the Gemara provide apparently conflicting implications.
</p><p>
The first part of Rebbi Yochanan's reasoning (that the Isur Kares should be removed from all of the brothers because <i>initially</i> any one of them could do Chalitzah or Yibum) implies that even before any brother performs Chalitzah, the Isur Kares is removed. On the other hand, the second part of his reasoning (that the Yavam and Yevamah who perform Chalitzah (or Yibum) act as Shelichim for the others) implies that it is the act of Chalitzah which removes the Isur Kares, and until that act is done the Isur remains in force.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (10b, DH Ihu) implies that the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' remains in force until Chalitzah is performed, at which time the act of Chalitzah removes the prohibition. Rebbi Yochanan -- who says that when the wife falls to Yibum any brother may perform Chalitzah -- does not mean that there is no prohibition of 'Eshes Ach,' but rather that it is <i>logical</i> that the Torah would not give a Mitzvah to the brothers from which they could excuse themselves and pass on to another brother. Rather, the brothers never actually remove themselves from the obligation. Whichever brother performs Chalitzah (or Yibum) does so on behalf of all of the other brothers.
</p><p>
This also seems to be the opinion of <b>RASHI</b> (52a, DH Nasan), who calls the Yevamah an 'Eshes Ach' even during the period of Zikah.
</p><p>
Support for this approach may be adduced from the opinion of Aba Shaul (39b). Aba Shaul disagrees with the Rabanan and maintains that performing Chalitzah is preferable over performing Yibum, because one who performs Yibum with impure intentions 'is considered as though he lives with an Ervah, and the child is virtually a Mamzer.' If the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is removed at the time the woman falls to Yibum and before Yibum is done, there should be no prohibition of Ervah whatsoever and no reason to say that the child is close to being a Mamzer. (See also Insights to Yevamos 7:1:b.)
</p><p>
(b) However, the <b>RASHBA</b> (41a, end of DH Shomeres Yavam) writes that Rebbi Yochanan's statement, 'If this [brother] wants to do Chalitzah, then he may do it, and if this one wants to do Chalitzah, then he may do it,' implies that the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' actually falls away as soon as the brothers become permitted to perform Yibum.
</p><p>
According to the Rashba, why does Rebbi Yochanan add that the brother acts as a Shali'ach on behalf of the other brothers? Even if he does not perform Chalitzah or Yibum on their behalf, the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' has already been removed from them!
</p><p>
Moreover, how does the Rashba understand the opinion of Reish Lakish who says that all of the other brothers are prohibited to the woman with an Isur Kares when one brother performs Yibum with her? The Rashba cannot explain that the Isur Kares falls away and then returns to the other brothers when one brother performs Yibum, because the Rashba himself asserts that once the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is removed it cannot return. 
</p><p>
The Acharonim offer two approaches to answer these questions. The simple approach is that the reason why Rebbi Yochanan says that one brother acts as a Shali'ach for the others is <i>not</i> to explain why the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is removed (because it is not removed when the brother performs Yibum, but earlier, at the time the woman falls to Yibum). Rather, when Rebbi Yochanan says that one brother acts as a Shali'ach for the others his intent is to explain why the prohibition of 'Lo Yivneh' takes effect for the other brothers. Although the verse implies that the prohibition of 'Lo Yivneh' applies only to the brother who performed Chalitzah (and prohibits him from attempting to 'rebuild' his brother's family), Rebbi Yochanan says that the prohibition of 'Lo Yivneh' applies to all of the brothers (and Tzaros) because of the Shelichus. (This approach is difficult to read into the words of the Gemara.)
</p><p>
How does the Rashba understand the opinion of Reish Lakish? The Rashba apparently understands that Reish Lakish indeed maintains that the prohibition of 'Eshes Ish' <i>could</i> return even if it was removed at the time the Yevamah fell to Yibum. Therefore, when one brother performs Chalitzah or Yibum, the prohibition returns to the other brothers. (This also appears to be the intention of the Rashba to 44a, DH v'Nachlotz, as printed in the Mosad ha'Rav Kook edition.)
</p><p>
A second approach is suggested by <b>RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN</b> Hy'd in <b>KOVETZ HE'OROS</b> (4:9 and 1:7). From various sources it seems that when one brother performs Yibum or Chalitzah, his act determines <i>retroactively</i> that the other brothers were not involved with the Zikah at all (see Insights to Yevamos 18:1, 24:1, and Imrei Moshe, end of #5). Perhaps this is Reish Lakish's intention when he says that the other brothers are prohibited to the Yevamah with an Isur Kares. Once one brother has performed Yibum, it becomes determined retroactively that he was the only one who was permitted to her. To which brother the Heter applies becomes known only after the Heter is actually utilized by one of the brothers.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan also agrees that, in theory, the Zikah would be retroactively removed from any brothers and Tzaros not involved in the Chalitzah. However, he maintains that because of the Shelichus, they are all considered to be involved in the Zikah even retroactively, and thus the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is removed from all of them. (According to the proposal that Rebbi Yochanan agrees that Zikah can be removed retroactively, it is not clear what he tries to prove from the words, 'If this [brother] wants to do Chalitzah, then he may do it.' How does Rebbi Yochanan prove from those words that the Zikah applies <i>retroactively</i> to all of them? Also, the Rashba clearly states that even when one brother <i>can no longer</i> do Yibum, the Yevamah is still permitted to him. This is contrary to the logic which Rav Elchanan applies to Reish Lakish's opinion.)
</p><p>
Another problem with the opinion of the Rashba is why the Gemara needs a verse to prove that the brother may remarry the Yevamah (with whom Yibum has been performed) after he divorced her (8b). His allowance to remarry her should be obvious if the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' can never return to the Yavam. Perhaps the Rashba maintains that it is only <i>after</i> the above verse is expounded that the Gemara understands that the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is removed permanently once the Yevamah falls to Yibum.
</p><p>
Another possible explanation is that the Rashba accedes that after Yibum (or Chalitzah) is performed, the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' can return. Since the prohibition can return, a verse is necessary to teach that the Yavam may remarry the Yevamah (with whom Yibum was performed) after he divorced her. If this indeed is the view of the Rashba, it also explains why Reish Lakish can posit that the brothers become prohibited to the Yevamah with an Isur Kares, and why Rebbi Yochanan needs to introduce the concept of Shelichus.
</p><p>
As for how the Rashba adduces support for his opinion from the Gemara, perhaps he merely intends to show that there is a logical reason to assume that once the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is removed, it remains permitted as long as possible (until Yibum according to Reish Lakish, and even after Yibum according to Rebbi Yochanan).
</p><p>
How does the Rashba understand Aba Shaul's statement (that it is better to do Chalitzah than Yibum because Yibum with impure intentions 'is considered as though he lives with an Ervah')? The Kovetz He'oros explains that either the Rashba discusses only the opinion of the Rabanan, or he understands that Aba Shaul's statement expresses only a Halachah d'Rabanan and not a Halachah d'Oraisa.
</p><p>
In conclusion, there is a basic difference in understanding among the Rishonim with regard to whether the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' is removed at the moment the woman falls to Yibum (<b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b>) or whether it is removed only at the time of Chalitzah or Yibum (<b>RASHBA</b>). (See also Insights to Yevamos 20:2 and 20:3.)
</p><p>
This dispute may have other Halachic implications. For example, the Gemara (54a) states that if the Yavam <i>unknowingly</i> has relations -- before he has performed Yibum -- with his deceased brother's wife (for example, he was asleep during the act), no Kinyan takes effect. According to Rashi and Tosfos, she should become disqualified from eating Terumah since she has had a forbidden relationship with an Ervah. According to the Rashba, the act was not forbidden at all, and thus she should remain permitted to eat Terumah and to marry a Kohen. (See, however, Insights to Yevamos 35:2.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Even though we learned that 15 cases exempt the 
               Tzarah, we find this 16th case.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'>'2) KIDUSHIN 'AFTER' CHALITZAH
'(a)	Question (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Levi holds that b'Di'eved cases are 
     listed. If so, the Mishnah should include one who did 
     Chalitzah to his Yevamah, then he was Mekadesh her and died 
     without children;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since she may not do Yibum, also her Tzarah is 
               exempt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> This case is omitted, since there 
          cannot be the Tzarah of a Tzarah (since the Tzarah cannot 
          do Yibum with any brother).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't R. Yochanan answer that a Yevamah 
          after Chalitzah is Chayavei Lavin, so she does Yibum or 
          Chalitzah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan answered according to Reish Lakish's 
          opinion:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> I (R. Yochanan) hold that a Yevamah after Chalitzah 
               is Chayavei Lavin, so she does Yibum or Chalitzah. 
               You (Reish Lakish) hold that this is Chayavei 
               Kerisos. You can say that it was omitted because the 
               case of Tzaras Tzarah does not arise.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> If one was Mekadesh his Yevamah after 
          Chalitzah, he is not forbidden to her with Kares, but the 
          brothers are. Both he and the brothers are forbidden to a 
          Tzarah with Kares;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> There is not Kares for him or the 
          brothers, not for her nor for the Tzaros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is Reish Lakish's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'That will not build the house of his brother' - 
          once he decided not to build (did Chalitzah), he may not 
          build.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This applies (only) to the Choletz (the Yavam who 
               did Chalitzah). His brothers are forbidden like they 
               used to be (there is Kares without a Mitzvah of 
               Yibum to permit it).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This applies only to the Choletzes (who did 
               Chalitzah). Her Tzaros are forbidden like they used 
               to be.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan disagrees, for we never find that initially 
          any brother may do Chalitzah to any widow, and now (that 
          he did not do Chalitzah to her), he is forbidden to her 
          with Kares.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Rather, the Choletz is a Shali'ach on behalf of all the 
          brothers, and the Choletzes is a Shali'ach on behalf of 
          her Tzaros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yochanan - Beraisa):</font></b> If one did Chalitzah to 
          his Yevamah, then was Mekadesh her and he died, she must 
          do Chalitzah with the brothers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like me. Since only a Lav forbids her to the 
               brothers, Chalitzah is needed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But you say that she is forbidden to the brothers by 
               Kares. If so, why is Chalitzah needed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Counter-question (Seifa):</font></b> If one of the brothers was 
          Mekadesh her, she has no claim against him (i.e. the 
          Kidushin did not take effect).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it is only Chayavei Lavin, why is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The Seifa is R. Akiva, who says 
          that Ein Kidushin Tofsin b'Chayavei Lavin (if a man is 
          Mekadesh a woman forbidden to him by a Lav, it does not 
          take effect).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, it should say that according to R. 
          Akiva, she has no claim against him! (The Reisha cannot 
          be R. Akiva, for if so Kidushin would not take effect 
          even if the Choletz was Mekadesh her.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is left difficult.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'KIDUSHIN' AFTER 'CHALITZAH' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Rav Ashi holds like Reish Lakish, and answered the 
          question according to R. Shimon. Ravina holds like R. 
          Yochanan, and answered the question like Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Reisha said that if the Choletz 
          was Mekadesh the Choletzes (and he died), she needs 
          Chalitzah from the brothers. This refers to brothers that 
          were born later. It is like R. Shimon (who permits Eshes 
          Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo. She may not do Yibum, for she 
          was forbidden to her husband, all the more so to her 
          Yavam - Tosfos.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Seifa says that if a brother was Mekadesh her, 
               she has no claim against him. This refers to a 
               brother that was already born, like Reish Lakish 
               taught.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Ravina):</font></b> The Reisha says that if the Choletz 
          was Mekadesh the Choletzes, she needs Chalitzah from the 
          brothers. This refers to brothers that were already born, 
          like R. Yochanan taught.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Seifa says that if a brother was Mekadesh her, 
               she has no claim against him. This refers to 
               brothers that were born later. It is like Chachamim 
               (that argue with R. Shimon).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Acha or Ravina):</font></b> If a man did Yibum, then a brother 
          did Yibum with a Tzarah, the second marriage is forbidden 
          with Kares;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (The other of Rav Acha and Ravina):</font></b> It is only Chayavei 
          Aseh.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The opinion that is Mechayev Kares holds like Reish 
               Lakish. The opinion that it is only an Aseh holds 
               like R. Yochanan.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'TZARAH' OF A 'SOTAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The Tzarah of a Sotah is forbidden (and even 
          exempt from Chalitzah). She is called Tamei, like Arayos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chisda - Mishnah - R. Shimon):</font></b> Bi'ah or 
          Chalitzah (of a Sotah) with a brother exempts her Tzarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav discusses a Sotah mid'Oraisa, but the Mishnah 
          explicitly discusses a 'Sotah mid'Rabanan' (a woman who 
          remarried in the life of her husband after one witness 
          testified that her husband died. She did not intend to 
          sin, but she is fined because she did not check well that 
          he really died.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The answer is obvious. Why did Rav Chisda 
               ask?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He holds that Rabbinic enactments are made 
               similar to Torah law.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Ashi - Mishnah):</font></b> If she was secluded (with 
          the man she was warned about) long enough to have Bi'ah, 
          she is forbidden to her husband and forbidden to eat 
          Terumah. If her husband dies, she does Chalitzah but not 
          Yibum. (Rav exempts even her Tzarah from Chalitzah!)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE OPINION OF REISH LAKISH IN A CASE OF REBBI SHIMON</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Reish Lakish (10b) maintains that when a man ('Reuven') dies and his wives fall to Yibum, when one of his surviving brothers ('Shimon') performs Chalitzah with one of the Tzaros, all of the other brothers are prohibited to all of the Tzaros with an Isur Kares (the Isur of 'Eshes Ach'). Only the wife and the brother who performed Chalitzah are not prohibited to each other with an Isur Kares, but rather with an ordinary Lav (the Isur of 'Lo Yivneh').
</p><p>
The Gemara challenges the view of Reish Lakish from a Beraisa. The Beraisa states that if Shimon performs Chalitzah with the Yevamah, marries her, and then dies, the other brothers are obligated to perform Chalitzah with her. According to Reish Lakish, however, there should be no obligation of Chalitzah because the woman is forbidden to the brothers with an Isur Kares.
</p><p>
Rav Ashi (11a) answers that the Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon and refers to a different case from the one which Reish Lakish discusses: Reuven dies, and Shimon performs Chalitzah with Reuven's wife. Then, new brothers are born. Since those new brothers were not alive when Shimon performed Chalitzah, no Isur took effect upon them when Shimon did Chalitzah. Thus, after Shimon marries the woman and dies, they are not prohibited to his wife and they must perform Chalitzah.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH u'Metaretz Lah and DH ha'Yiludim) implies that according to Rebbi Shimon, if a new brother ('Levi') is born <i>after</i> Shimon performs Chalitzah but <i>before</i> he marries the woman, the new brother is forbidden to the woman because of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo' -- she was marred to <i>Reuven</i> before he was born. Only if Levi is born <i>after</i> Shimon marries her is he permitted to perform Yibum with her when Shimon dies, because in that situation the prohibition of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo' does not apply to Levi (since he <i>was</i> in the world when Shimon was married). The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>ME'IRI</b> write this explicitly.
</p><p>
Rebbi Shimon rules that when a new brother ('Levi') is born after Shimon performs Yibum, the woman is no longer considered 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo' and Levi may perform Yibum with her when Shimon dies. If this is the view of Rebbi Shimon, why does he not say the same thing in a case in which Levi is born after Shimon performs Chalitzah with the woman (and then marries her)? Chalitzah accomplishes the same effect as Yibum -- it ends the Zikah from the wife's marriage to the first husband! Why does Rashi assume that Rebbi Shimon still considers the woman an 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo' even in a case in which Levi is born after the Zikah has ended (through Chalitzah) but before Shimon marries the woman?
</p><p>
What is Rashi's source for this assumption? What logic is there to say that Shimon's marriage to his Chalutzah changes the status of the brother born after the marriage, and it is not the same as his status had he been born after Shimon performed <i>Yibum</i> with her? Why should the marriage make any difference if it has nothing to do with Yibum?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> According to Reish Lakish who maintains that the other brothers are forbidden to all of the Tzaros with an Isur Kares, how is a case of a 'Nefilah Sheniyah' possible? (The case of 'Nefilah Sheniyah' is when Reuven died and one of the surviving brothers, Shimon, performed Yibum with one of Reuven's wives, and then <i>Shimon</i> died, in which case the surviving brothers have an obligation to do Yibum with the woman.) All of the brothers are forbidden to Shimon's wife (the Yevamah) because she is their 'Eshes Ach' (since she was married to Reuven)!
</p><p>
The answer to this question may be found in the words of <b>RASHI</b> later (20a, DH Achoso; see also Tosfos DH Hai) who discusses Rebbi Shimon's opinion that when the new brother was born after Shimon did Yibum, he is permitted to do Yibum with Shimon's wife when Shimon dies. He explains that Rebbi Shimon's logic is that there is no question that Shimon himself was permitted to the woman, because he married her through Yibum. Since Shimon's wife falls to Levi through the medium of Shimon (since she was Shimon's wife), Levi has the same allowance to marry her as Shimon had. That is, Levi in a sense 'inherits' Shimon's allowance to marry her.
</p><p>
This explains why the woman -- after the second Nefilah (when Shimon dies after he performed Yibum with Reuven's wife) -- is permitted to the brothers according to Reish Lakish. Although they are forbidden to the Yevamah with an Isur Kares, now that they 'receive' the Yevamah 'through' Shimon, they also receive Shimon's allowance to marry her. 
</p><p>
Why, though, does Reish Lakish say that if Shimon performed Chalitzah and then married the woman, all of the other brothers are forbidden to her with an Isur Kares and may not perform Yibum with her if Shimon dies? Reish Lakish should say that when Shimon dies, the brothers inherit Shimon's allowance to marry her, and they <i>may</i> perform Yibum with her! Since Shimon's act of Chalitzah removed the Isur Kares from him (and replaced it with an Isur Lav), the Isur Kares should also be removed from the other brothers and they thus should have an obligation of Yibum! What is the difference between a case in which Shimon performed Yibum and then died and a case in which he performed Chalitzah, married her, and then died? Why are the other brothers forbidden to her with an Isur Kares while the new brother, Levi, who was born after the Chalitzah, <i>does</i> inherit Shimon's Heter to the woman and <i>is</i> permitted to her?
</p><p>
Similarly, why -- in a case of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo' (when Levi was born after Reuven died but <i>before</i> Shimon did Yibum) -- is Levi prohibited from doing Yibum with the woman because of the Isur of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo'? He should inherit Shimon's Heter to the Yevamah when Shimon dies and his wife falls to Yibum!
</p><p>
It must be that when Shimon did Chalitzah, the other brothers were forbidden to her with an Isur Kares for one moment before Shimon married her (because during the time after he did Chalitzah and before he married her, there was no potential for Yibum). As long as there was one moment during which they were forbidden to her and there was no Heter for them to do Yibum, they remain forbidden to her forever. They will never become permitted to do Yibum with her by virtue of Shimon's Heter to her. The same applies to the 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.' Since Levi was forbidden to Shimon's wife <i>before</i> Shimon performed Yibum, he remains forbidden to her under all circumstances.
</p><p>
The same logic dictates that if Levi is born <i>after</i> Shimon does Chalitzah but <i>before</i> Shimon marries her, according to Rebbi Shimon Levi will be forbidden to her for one moment ('Sha'ah Achas') as though he was born before the Yibum during the Zikah. Since there is no potential for Levi to perform Yibum after Shimon's Chalitzah, he never will be permitted to the woman. When the Gemara says that a newborn brother <i>is</i> permitted to the woman after his brother's Chalitzah with her, it must refer to when he was born <i>after</i> the brother remarried the woman. (M. Kornfeld, based on <b>KOVETZ HE'OROS</b> 2:2)
</p><p>
The reason why Levi is permitted to the woman if he is born <i>after</i> Shimon marries her is that from the moment Shimon marries her, the potential for Yibum exists (if he dies without children), and therefore if Levi is born after their marriage it cannot be said that he was forbidden to Shimon's wife for one moment during which there was no potential for Yibum. Before Shimon marries her there is no potential Yibum and thus the newborn brother certainly is forbidden to her because of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo,' and he remains forbidden to her forever. (<b>ME'IRI</b>)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav discusses a Vadai Sotah (she definitely had 
          Bi'ah). The Mishnah discusses a Safek Sotah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does he say that a Vadai Sotah is different 
          because she is called Tamei? Also a Safek Sotah is called 
          Tamei!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yosi ben Kipar):</font></b> If a man was Machazir 
               Gerushaso (divorced his wife and remarried her after 
               she remarried and was widowed or divorced from her 
               new husband), he is forbidden to her. If she was 
               Mekudeshes to someone else, she is permitted - 
               'Acharei Asher Hutama'ah';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim forbid in both cases. 'Acharei Asher 
               Hutama'ah' refers to a Sotah that was in seclusion.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'Seclusion' is a euphemism for Zenus (but a Safek 
          Sotah is not called Tamei).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If she was Mezaneh, Tum'ah is explicitly 
          written (in Parashas Sotah itself) - 'V'Nisterah v'Hi 
          Nitma'ah'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'Acharei Asher Hutama'ah' forbids her with a Lav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi ben Kipar holds that there is no Lav 
               regarding a Sotah, even if she was Mezaneh.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is because 'Kidushin' and 'marriage' are 
               written (regarding Machazir Gerushaso, therefore we 
               do not include Zenus).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'YIBUM' AFTER THE DEATH OF A 'MACHAZIR' 'GERUSHASO'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If a man was Machazir Gerushaso 
          after she remarried and he died, what is the law of her 
          Tzarah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1:</font></b> We do not ask according to R. Yosi ben Kipar. 
          Since Tum'ah is written regarding Machazir Gerushaso (she 
          is like Ervah, so), her Tzarah is like her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'To'evah <i>Hi</i>' teaches that she 
               is an abomination, but her Tzarah is permitted (to 
               do Yibum)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> No. 'Hi' excludes her children (they are 
               Kesherim), but her Tzarah is also To'evah (forbidden 
               to do Yibum).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The question is according to Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even though they say that Tum'ah written regarding 
               Machazir Gerushaso refers to a Sotah, the simple 
               meaning of the verse is not uprooted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps once it is uprooted, it is entirely 
               uprooted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> We do not ask according to Chachamim. Once 
          the verse is uprooted, it is entirely uprooted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We ask according to R. Yosi ben Kipar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Even though it says Tum'ah regarding Machazir 
               Gerushaso, it says 'To'evah Hi'. She is To'evah, but 
               her Tzarah is not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps she is To'evah, but her children are 
               not. However, her Tzarah is also To'evah. (End of 
               Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Sheshes - Mishnah):</font></b> If one widow was Kesherah 
          and the other Pesulah, if he does Chalitzah, he does it 
          with the Pesulah. If he does Yibum, he does it with the 
          Kesherah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What do Kesherah and Pesulah refer to?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It cannot mean permitted and forbidden to all 
                    (Kohanim, and the Yavam is a Yisrael). Since 
                    she is permitted to him, it makes no difference 
                    to him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, it means permitted and forbidden 
               to him. The dead brother was Machazir Gerushaso, and 
               the Mishnah permits Yibum with the Tzarah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (and Answer #2):</font></b> Really, they mean permitted 
          and forbidden to Kohanim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even though it makes no difference to him, Rav Yosef 
               taught that one should not spill out water that 
               others could use. (He should not do Chalitzah to the 
               widow permitted to Kohanim, since this would forbid 
               her to Kohanim.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Machazir Gerushaso after she 
          married, she and her Tzarah do Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> This cannot be!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It must mean that she <i>or</i> her Tzarah does 
               Chalitzah. (This answers our question.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> In any case the Beraisa must be corrected. We 
          can correct it to say that she may do only Chalitzah, but 
          her Tzarah may do Chalitzah or Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If one was Machazir 
          Gerushaso after she married, what is the law of her 
          Tzarah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Ami:</font></b> Why don't you ask about her?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan:</font></b> Her law is clear from a Kal va'Chomer:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She became forbidden to the one she was permitted to 
               (her husband). All the more so she is forbidden to 
               the one she was forbidden to (the Yavam)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He asks about her Tzarah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Is the Kal va'Chomer strong enough to forbid 
                    the Tzarah, or not?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Rav Nachman - Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If one 
          was Machazir Gerushaso after she remarried, what is her 
          law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Ami:</font></b> Why don't you ask about her Tzarah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan:</font></b> The law of her Tzarah is clear. The Kal 
          va'Chomer is not strong enough to forbid the Tzarah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The question is regarding her. Is the Kal va'Chomer 
               strong enough to block the Mitzvah of Yibum, or not?
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) CHALITZAH AND YIBUM IN A CASE OF 'MACHZIR GERUSHASO'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses whether a woman or her Tzarah is permitted to perform Yibum or Chalitzah in a case of Machzir Gerushaso. The Gemara attempts to bring proof from the Mishnah later (44a) which states that if a man who was married to two women -- one 'Pesulah' and one 'Kesherah' -- dies, only the Kesherah may do Yibum, and the Pesulah must do Chalitzah. The Gemara asserts that when the Mishnah mentions a woman who is 'Pesulah,' it refers to a divorced woman (Gerushah) in a case of Machzir Gerushaso. The Gerushah (divorcee) is 'Pesulah' because her husband transgresses a Lo Ta'aseh when he remarries her. The Gerushah is not prohibited to anyone else, and thus when her husband dies she falls to Yibum to his brother. The Mishnah teaches that the brother should not do Yibum, but do Chalitzah instead. The deceased brother's second wife (the Tzarah of the Gerushah) is 'Kesherah,' and the brother may do Yibum with her.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the Tzarah may do Yibum even though the Torah uses the term 'Tum'ah' with regard to Machzir Gerushaso, which implies that the Gerushah has the status of an Ervah. Nevertheless, the word 'Tum'ah' refers only to the woman herself (the Gerushah) and not to her Tzarah.
</p><p>
Rashi explains that the Gemara addresses the doubt according to the Lishna Basra, the second version of the question about the Tzarah of the Gerushah. According to the Lishna Basra, the Gemara is in doubt according to the opinion of Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar. Rashi refers to the verse's usage of the term 'Tum'ah' because it is Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar who applies that term to Machzir Gerushaso.
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation is problematic. The Mishnah quoted by the Gemara says that the Pesulah -- that is, the Gerushah in the case of Machzir Gerushaso -- may perform only Chalitzah. However, if that Mishnah expresses the view of Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar, the Gerushah herself should not need Chalitzah in the first place because the Torah uses the term 'Tum'ah' with regard to Machzir Gerushaso. She is exempt from both Yibum and Chalitzah, like a Sotah and like a woman who is an Ervah. Why does Rashi explain that the Gemara's answer addresses the Lishna Basra and explains the opinion of Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar?
</p><p>
Moreover, the Lishna Basra assumes that the Rabanan maintain that the Gerushah may perform <i>only</i> Chalitzah and that the Tzarah may perform <i>either</i> Chalitzah <i>or</i> Yibum. Accordingly, when the Mishnah says that the 'Pesulah' (the Gerushah) may perform only Chalitzah and the 'Kesherah' (the Tzarah) may perform either Chalitzah or Yibum, perhaps it is expressing the view of the <i>Rabanan</i>. How can the Gemara prove from that Mishnah what <i>Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar</i> maintains if that Mishnah may be the opinion of the Rabanan? Rashi should explain instead that the Gemara is addressing the doubt of the Lishna Kama, the first version of the question about the Tzarah of the Gerushah. According to the Lishna Kama, Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar maintains that both the Gerushah herself and her Tzarah are exempt from Chalitzah and Yibum, and thus the Mishnah (44a) cannot follow his opinion. The Rabanan, however, maintain that the Gerushah <i>does</i> perform Chalitzah, and the question is whether the Tzarah may perform <i>only</i> Chalitzah or whether she may perform Yibum as well. The Mishnah answers the question and teaches that the Rabanan maintain that the Tzarah may also perform Yibum. (According to the Lishna Kama, the Mishnah cannot be expressing the view of Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar, because he maintains that <i>both</i> the Gerushah and her Tzarah are exempt, while the Mishnah says that they are both required to perform at least Chalitzah). Why does Rashi not explain the Gemara this way? (This is the way <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Tzarasah, DH Amar Lei) explains the Gemara.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi understands the Gemara in the same way as the <b>RAMBAN</b> and other Rishonim (11a). They explain that when Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar says that the term 'Tum'ah' refers to Machzir Gerushaso (and compares Machzir Gerushaso to a case of Ervah), he does not necessarily exempt the Gerushah from both Chalitzah and Yibum. Although the term 'Tum'ah' in the verse of Sotah exempts the Sotah from both Chalitzah and Yibum, the term 'Tum'ah' in the verse of Machzir Gerushaso exempts her only from Yibum but not from Chalitzah (see Chart, footnote 5). Accordingly, even Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar does not exempt the Gerushah from Chalitzah. That is why the Gemara suggests that the Mishnah (44a) -- which says that the 'Pesulah' (the Gerushah) performs Chalitzah -- may express the view of Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar. (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
This point -- that Rashi maintains that the use of the term 'Tum'ah' does not exempt the Machzir Gerushaso from Chalitzah but only from Yibum -- is implicit in the words of Rashi himself (DH Tzaraso Mahu #1). Rashi adds the words, '[What is the status of the Tzarah] <i>to do Yibum</i>.' Rashi implies that there is no question about Chalitzah; she definitely performs Chalitzah even though the verse uses the term 'Tum'ah.'
</p><p>
How does Rashi know that the Mishnah (44a) follows Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar's opinion, if it also may follow the opinion of the Rabanan (who say that the Gerushah may perform Chalitzah but not Yibum)? The <b>RASHBA</b> and the <b>RITVA</b> write that the Mishnah later cannot follow the opinion of the Rabanan because if it did it would not teach any Chidush. The Rabanan have already taught that the Gerushah herself is Pesulah and may perform only Chalitzah, while the Tzarah is Kesherah and may perform either Chalitzah or Yibum. Only if the Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar does it teach a Chidush. According to Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar (who says that the term 'Tum'ah' applies to the Gerushah), it is a Chidush to say that the term 'Tum'ah' does not apply to the Tzarah as it applies to the Gerushah. This must be the Chidush of the Mishnah, and thus the Mishnah must be expressing the opinion of Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar.
</p><p>
Rashi does not seem to follow this approach. The Rashba and Ritva understand that the Gemara's proof is viable according to both versions of Rebbi Yehudah's question. Rashi, however, explains that it provides proof only for the Gemara's second version of the question.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi understands that according to both versions of the Gemara's question, the Rabanan maintain that the status of the Tzarah and the status of the Gerushah <i>are the same</i>. According to the principle, 'Ein Mikra Yotzei mi'Yedei Peshuto,' the term 'Tum'ah' must refer to Machzir Gerushaso, and thus both the Gerushah and her Tzarah may perform only Chalitzah and not Yibum (because 'Tum'ah' applies to the Tzarah just as it applies to the Gerushah herself). Therefore, when the Mishnah <i>differentiates</i> between a Pesulah (i.e. a Gerushah) and Kesherah (i.e. the Tzarah), it cannot be expressing the view of the Rabanan. It must be following the view of Rebbi Yosi ben Kifar, and the Gemara's question according to the second version is resolved. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'YIBUM' AFTER THE DEATH OF A 'MACHAZIR' 'GERUSHASO' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The attempted answers 3:d and 3:e (Daf 11B) are proposed 
          and rejected exactly as above.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'MEMA'ENES'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Lili bar Mamal):</font></b> If Leah was married mid'Rabanan to 
          Shimon, and she was Mema'enes (retroactively annulled the 
          marriage), her Tzarah is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> To whom is she forbidden?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It cannot be to the brothers. Leah herself is 
               permitted, all the more so her Tzarah is!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> If she did Mi'un to one brother, she is 
               permitted to a different brother.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Her Tzarah is forbidden to Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Leah is permitted to the brothers, since they 
          did not do an action with her. Shimon should also be 
          permitted to the Tzarah, since he did no act with her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is a decree to forbid her, lest one permit the 
          Tzarah of Bito Mema'enes (the Yavam's daughter, who 
          happened to do Mi'un).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Tzarah of Tzarah of Bito Mema'enes is 
          permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> In every case, if the Arayos died or did 
               Mi'un, the Tzaros are permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> To whom did she do Mi'un?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If she did Mi'un to her husband, this is the 
                    just like being divorced!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> She did Mi'un to the Yavam.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Really, she did Mi'un to the 
                    husband. The Mishnah teaches about two kinds of 
                    divorce.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is this different? When she does Mi'un to 
          the husband, she uproots the marriage. Also when she does 
          Mi'un to the Yavam, she uproots the original marriage!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Tzarah is forbidden for the reason of Rami 
          bar Yechezkel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rami bar Yechezkel):</font></b> If she did Mi'un to the 
               husband, she is permitted to the father. If she did 
               Mi'un to the brother, she is forbidden to the 
               father;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Because when she fell to Yibum she looked like his 
               daughter-in-law, therefore she is forbidden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Here too, when she fell to Yibum, she looked like 
               the Tzarah of his daughter!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TZARAS' 'AILONIS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Asi):</font></b> Tzaras Ailonis is forbidden. 'Asher Teled' 
          excludes an Ailonis, since she is sterile.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Sheshes - Mishnah):</font></b> Three brothers were 
          married to three unrelated women. Reuven died; Shimon 
          gave Ma'amar (Kidushei Yevamah mid'Rabanan) to Reuven's 
          widow and then he died. Shimon's widows do Chalitzah but 
          not Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'And one of them died' - Yibum applies when she is 
               widowed from one brother, not from two.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> This is the case of Tzaras Eshes Ach 
               which is forbidden because of the fall to Yibum. We 
               do not find a case in the Torah like this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Rav Yosef comes to exclude Tzaras 
               Ailonis, who is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, he comes to exclude Tzaras Ailonis, who is 
          forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why did he say this is the case?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> In this case, the Tzarah needs Chalitzah. Tzaras 
          Ailonis does not need Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Isur to do Yibum in the Mishnah is only 
          mid'Rabanan. An Ailonis is forbidden mid'Oraisa to do 
          Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> In any of these cases, if she died... 
          or was found to be an Ailonis, the Tzaros are permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> In the Mishnah, the husband did not know that she 
          was an Ailonis (so they were never truly married); Rav 
          Asi discusses when he knew that she was an Ailonis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support:</font></b> The Mishnah says that she was found to be an 
          Ailonis. It does not say she was (already known to be) an 
          Ailonis.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE LOGIC BEHIND A TZARAH'S EXEMPTION FROM YIBUM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Asi states that the Tzarah of an Aylonis is exempt from Yibum. The Torah teaches, 'ha'Bechor Asher Teled...' -- 'The firstborn son whom <i>she bears</i> will perpetuate the name of the dead brother' (Devarim 25:6), which excludes Yibum with an Aylonis who cannot bear children. Since she is exempt from Yibum she retains the prohibition of 'Eshes Ach' and -- as an Ervah to the surviving brothers -- she exempts her Tzarah from Yibum.
</p><p>
Rava and Rebbi Yochanan disagree with Rav Asi's ruling. They conclude that the Tzarah of an Aylonis is <i>not</i> exempt from Yibum. The Gemara says that even if an additional prohibition of Ervah prohibits the Aylonis to the brothers, she still does <i>not</i> exempt her Tzarah from Yibum; an Aylonis does not fall to Yibum at all, for the Torah exempts her from Yibum entirely. <b>RASHI</b> (12b, DH Hilchesa) and <b>TOSFOS</b> (8a, DH Trei) explain that despite the fact that the Tzarah must perform Yibum, from the perspective of the Aylonis she is considered as though she is married to an outsider and not to a brother who died childless and whose wives fall to Yibum.
</p><p>
The case of an Aylonis seems similar to the case of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.' In both cases, the Torah exempts the woman from Yibum ('Asher Teled' in the case of an Aylonis, and 'Yeshvu... Yachdav' in the case of an 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo'). However, the Mishnah (2a, 17a) clearly states that the latter <i>does</i> exempt her Tzarah from Yibum, even though the Torah specifically exempts the woman herself! Why does an Aylonis <i>not</i> exempt her Tzarah from Yibum, even though the verse exempts the Aylonis herself? What is the difference between the two cases?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Indeed, the case of an Aylonis and the case of an 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo' are the same. The only difference between the two cases is that the case of an Aylonis is one of 'Nefilah <i>Rishonah</i>.' That is, the woman is an Aylonis at the time her husband dies, and the verse specifically exempts her from Yibum for that reason. She does not fall to Yibum at all, and therefore her Tzarah does not have the status of a 'Tzaras Ervah.' (It is obvious that the woman is still an Aylonis when she is subject to Yibum, because an Aylonis' status never changes.)
</p><p>
The Mishnah, however, is discussing a case of 'Nefilah <i>Sheniyah</i>' of an 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.' That is, the woman fell to Yibum <i>in the past</i>, before a brother was born to her husband. At that time, another brother performed Yibum with her. Now, her second husband (the second brother) dies, and again she is subject to Yibum. She is exempt from Yibum, but <i>not</i> because of the specific exemption of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo,' since the two brothers (the second and the third) <i>were</i> alive at the same time. Rather, she is exempt from Yibum because she was an 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo' the first time she fell to Yibum, and therefore this time she is prohibited because of 'Eshes Ach she'Lo b'Makom Mitzvah.' Since the Torah does not specifically exempt her from Yibum this time, but she is exempt because she is an Ervah, she exempts her Tzarah from Yibum.
</p><p>
(It is obvious that the Mishnah refers to a woman who <i>once</i> was an 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo' but is no longer an 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo' the second time she is subject to Yibum. The Mishnah discusses the status of her Tzarah, who is not an 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.' When a brother is born after his childless brother dies, <i>all</i> of the Yevamos are equally exempt from Yibum due to the exemption of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.')
</p><p>
The reason for this distinction is as follows. The Halachah that a woman who is an Ervah to the surviving brother exempts her Tzarah from Yibum has a logical basis. The logic is that Kidushin, the bond of marriage, cannot take effect with an Ervah (Kidushin 67b). The bond of Yibum, called Zikah, is similar to Kidushin in that it forms a connection between the Yevamah and the Yavam. If the Yevamah is an Ervah to the Yavam, then just as the bond of Kidushin cannot take effect between the two, so, too, the bond of Zikah also cannot take effect. The Mishnah (41a; see also <b>TOSFOS</b> to 16a, DH Bnei) says that for this reason if a woman falls to Yibum and then one of the surviving brothers performs Kidushin with her sister, rendering the Yevamah an 'Achos Ishah' to him (the sister of his wife), he removes the Zikah for Yibum between the Yevamah and that brother.
</p><p>
The Rishonim themselves make this point with regard to performing Yibum with a woman to whom one is prohibited because of a Lav. The Gemara (9a) says that according to Rebbi Akiva who maintains that Kidushin does <i>not</i> take effect with a woman who is prohibited to the man with a Lav, a woman who is prohibited with a Lav does not perform Yibum or Chalitzah (and exempts her Tzarah from Yibum). <b>TOSFOS</b> (9a) asks that there is no source in the Torah that Chayavei Lavim are exempt from Yibum. The Torah teaches only that Chayavei <i>Kares</i> are exempt from Yibum (through the Hekesh of Rebbi Yonah (8a) which compares all Chayavei Kares to 'Achos Ishah,' or, according to Rava, through the principle of 'Ein Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kares'). Therefore, a woman who is prohibited only with a Lav should be required to do Yibum even according to Rebbi Akiva!
</p><p>
The Rishonim (see <b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>, <b>RITVA</b> ibid.; see also <b>RAMBAN</b> to 20b and Insights there) answer that the exemption from Yibum for an Ervah who is prohibited by Kares shows that the reason is not merely that the Torah exempts specific types of prohibited women from Yibum, but rather that in any situation where Kidushin cannot take effect, Zikah also cannot take effect. If Zikah cannot take effect, there is no Mitzvah of Yibum (and the Isur of 'Eshes Ach' remains). Therefore, according to Rebbi Akiva who says that the Kidushin does not take effect for Chayavei Lavim, the verse which teaches that Chayavei Kares are exempt from Yibum also teaches that Chayavei Lavim are exempt, because the same logic applies to both: since the Kidushin does not take effect, Zikah also does not take effect. (Although Rava asserts that <i>no</i> verse is used to teach that Chayavei Kares cannot perform Yibum, he says that only according to the Rabanan. According to Rebbi Akiva, the verse <i>is</i> used to teach that a woman with whom Kidushin does not take effect does not fall to Yibum, whether she is prohibited by an Isur Kares or only by a Lav. From this verse he derives that Chayavei Lav cannot perform Yibum.)
</p><p>
This approach explains why an Ervah exempts not only herself but also her Tzarah from Yibum. When a woman who is an Ervah to the brother falls to Yibum, she breaks, or disrupts, the Zikah. However, she breaks not only her own Zikah-connection to him, but she breaks the entire Zikah to that brother, so that all of her Tzaros are also exempt from Yibum. This is because there cannot be a 'half' Zikah; once part of the Zikah (her own) is broken, the entire Zikah of the house to that brother is also broken.
</p><p>
This manner of breaking of the Zikah functions only when the Ervah was fit to do Yibum but her Ervah-status prevented the Yibum and 'broke' the Zikah. In contrast, in the case of an Aylonis, her status of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo' does not 'break' any Zikah. There was no cause for her to have Zikah to the brothers in the first place because the Torah specifically exempts her from the laws of Yibum. Since her status as an Ervah does not break her Zikah (since there is none), it also does not break the Tzarah's Zikah, and thus the Tzarah remains obligated to do Yibum.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The Halachah is that Tzaras Ailonis is permitted, 
          even if her husband knew that she was an Ailonis, and 
          even if the Ailonis is the Yavam's daughter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah says if she was found (to be an 
          Ailonis)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It should say that if she was.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravin):</font></b> The Tzarah of a Mema'enes, of an Ailonis, or of 
          Machazir Gerushaso is permitted.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN A MINOR GIVE BIRTH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Bivi - Beraisa):</font></b> Three women use a wad to prevent 
          pregnancy: a minor, a pregnant woman, and a nursing 
          woman. (Rashi - they <i>may</i> use a contraceptive wad at the 
          time of Bi'ah. Tosfos - this is forbidden! Rather, they 
          <i>must</i> use a wad <i>after</i> Bi'ah to remove the semen.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A minor does so, lest she get pregnant, and this 
               might kill her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A pregnant woman does so lest the fetus get mashed 
               (Rashi - if a second fetus is conceived; Tosfos - 
               this is impossible. Rather, we are concerned lest 
               there are already two fetuses inside, and semen will 
               enter between them);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A nursing woman does so lest pregnancy force her to 
               wean her baby, and it will die.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Meir says, a girl between 11 and 12 years uses a 
          cloth. If she is younger or older, she has relations 
          normally.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, at any age she has normal relations. 
          Shamayim will have mercy on her - 'Hash-m guards the 
          simple.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> It says that pregnancy might kill an 
          11-year-old. This implies that a minor may get pregnant 
          and not die!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, it is possible for a mother-in-law to do 
          Mi'un i.e. she gave birth before 12). The Mishnah says 
          that we cannot find this case!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, the Beraisa should say 'lest she get 
          pregnant and (certainly) die.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah bar Livai):</font></b> Before this age (11), she will 
               not get pregnant at all; during this time (11 to 
               12), she and the fetus will die; after (12), she and 
               the fetus will live.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rabah bar Shmuel taught that one cannot say 
          that the mother-in-law did Mi'un... because she already 
          gave birth! (He did not say 'because she is already an 
          adult.' This implies that a minor can give birth, just 
          she may not do Mi'un afterwards.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, our text 'lest she get pregnant, and this 
          <i>might</i> kill her' is correct.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, how do we answer Question (e)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Safra):</font></b> (Bearing) a child is like Simanim 
          (two hairs that show adulthood).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Some say that a child is better than Simanim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How is it <i>better</i>? (Also after Simanim she 
          cannot do Mi'un!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Even R. Yehudah, who permits Mi'un (after 
          Simanim) until she has many hairs, agrees that she may 
          not do Mi'un if she has given birth.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) MARITAL RELATIONS WITH A 'MOCH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav Bivi quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Meir says that there are three women who may use a Moch during marital relations: a Ketanah (minor), Me'uberes (a pregnant woman), and Menikah (a nursing mother). The Gemara explains that a Ketanah is any girl between the ages of eleven and twelve. Before the age of eleven, however, she may not use a Moch. The Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Meir and rule that no women should use a Moch; rather, they should have relations in the normal manner and Hash-m will protect them ('Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m').
</p><p>
What is the Halachah in situations <i>other</i> than the three situations mentioned in the Gemara (and in the three situations according to the Chachamim)? Is the use of a Moch permitted?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (cited by <b>TOSFOS</b>) writes that a woman is always permitted to insert a Moch <i>after</i> the act, because no prohibition is involved in such an act. The man transgresses no prohibition when the woman inserts a Moch after the act; he is no different from a man who lives with a woman who cannot have children (such as an older woman) -- as long as the act is done in the normal manner, he may live with her. The woman also transgresses no prohibition when she inserts the Moch, because the Zera which the Moch destroys is not her own, and thus she is permitted to destroy the Zera after the act. When Rebbi Meir says that three women may use a Moch, he means that they are <i>obligated</i> to do so, to protect themselves from danger. The Chachamim who disagree maintain that the women are not in severe enough danger to obligate them to use a Moch. They are permitted not to use one, but they may use one if they choose to do so.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (here and in Kesuvos 39a) writes that these three women are <i>permitted</i> (but not obligated) to use a Moch according to Rebbi Meir. This implies that the Chachamim maintain that they are <i>prohibited</i> from using a Moch. <b>TOSFOS</b> and other Rishonim seem to understand that Rashi refers to a Moch which a woman inserts after the act, as Rabeinu Tam explains. Rashi is saying that under normal circumstances such a Moch is prohibited. Apparently, Rashi maintains that the woman is also prohibited from destroying Zera.
</p><p>
The Rishonim question Rashi's explanation that when Rebbi Meir says 'three women use a Moch,' he means that they are only <i>permitted</i>, but not obligated, to use a Moch. If Rebbi Meir merely permits, but does not obligate, the women to use a Moch, then when he says that a girl below the age of eleven should have relations in the normal manner, he must mean that she is <i>prohibited</i> from using a Moch. The Gemara, however, says that a girl below the age of eleven cannot become pregnant. Why, then, should she be prohibited from using a Moch? There is no destruction of Zera involved if she uses a Moch, because the Zera would not have produced children in any case!
</p><p>
Rashi in Nidah (45a) addresses this question when he writes that the statement 'three women use a Moch' means that 'it is beneficial for them to use a Moch.' Rashi means that the words 'Meshamshos b'Moch' mean only that the use of a Moch benefits them in some important way. Since it benefits them in some way, its use is permitted in these cases, even though the Moch is usually prohibited. This implies that for a minor under the age of eleven and for all other women, a Moch provides no benefit. Since it provides them with no benefit, for some women the Moch is prohibited (for all other women), and for others its use is <i>not recommended</i> (for a girl under the age of eleven). Accordingly, Rashi's words in Nidah complement his words here. (<b>RITVA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (Teshuvos #71, 72) concludes that this is the majority opinion among the Rishonim.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (in Kesuvos 39a) and the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> understand that Rashi refers to a Moch which is inserted <i>before</i> the act of relations, as the simple reading of Rashi implies. These three women are permitted to use a Moch, while all others are prohibited. Why may a woman insert a Moch <i>before</i> the act? Inserting the Moch before the act causes the <i>man</i> to actively destroy his Zera by releasing it into a Moch, which is forbidden mid'Oraisa! Why is he permitted to have relations when the woman is using a Moch? He should be prohibited from performing the act with a Ketanah (or Me'uberes or Menikah) any not be permitted to perform the act with a Moch.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (in Kesuvos) explains that one is permitted to use a Moch because of the Mitzvah of Onah. That is, since the man fulfills the Mitzvah of Onah, he is not considered to be destroying the Zera in vain, even if the woman uses a Moch. Tosfos proves this from the fact that a man is permitted to have relations with an older woman even though he knows that the Zera will be destroyed and will not be productive.
</p><p>
The other Rishonim (cited in (b) above) do not accept Tosfos' comparison between relations while using a Moch and relations with an older woman. They maintain (as Tosfos here writes) that the reason why relations with an older woman is permitted even though the Zera will not be productive is that the act is done in the normal manner. The Torah does not place a limitation on the age of the woman one may marry, and thus the normal manner of relations is never considered an act of Hashchasas Zera, even when the Zera will not be productive because of natural reasons. In contrast, when a woman inserts a Moch before the act, the act then is not done in the normal manner because the Zera is prevented from reaching the womb, and therefore it is prohibited. 
</p><p>
(The dispute between this opinion and the previous one apparently depends on the definition of 'destruction of Zera' ('Hashchasas Zera'): According to the second opinion, Hashchasas Zera is defined as any act which causes the Zera not to be used for <i>any</i> positive purpose (such as to procreate or to fulfill the Mitzvah of Onah). According to the first opinion, Hashchasas Zera is defined as any act which prevents Zera specifically from <i>procreating</i>.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN A MINOR GIVE BIRTH (cont.)?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Zvid):</font></b> She cannot have children without 
          bringing Simanim (and they are valid signs of adulthood 
          even if she is less than 12).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We can check if she brought (why must we rely 
          on a Chazakah?)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We are concerned lest they fell out.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is like the opinion that is concerned lest 
          Simanim fell out. How can we answer for the opinion that 
          is not concerned?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Here even he is concerned lest they fell out due 
          to the pain of childbirth.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE EXEMPTION OF THE 'TZARAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Arayos exempt their Tzaros (and the Tzaros 
          of their Tzaros).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'Litzror (to be a co-wife)' - 
          the extra 'Reish' suggests many Tzaros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It is logical. A Tzarah is 
          forbidden because she falls to Yibum with an Ervah. The 
          Tzarah of a Tzarah also falls to Yibum with an Ervah 
          (Tzaras Ervah is Eshes Ach without a Heter)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the Ervah... was divorced... the Tzaros are 
          permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  This applies even if the deceased married the Tzarah 
          before he divorced the Ervah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Mishnah):</font></b> Reuven, Shimon and Levi 
          (brothers) are married to Rachel and Leah (sisters) and 
          Esther (an unrelated woman), respectively. Reuven 
          divorced Rachel, then Levi died. Reuven did Yibum, then 
          died. In this case, we say that if the Ervah... was 
          divorced, the Tzaros are permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We only say this because he divorced before doing 
               Yibum, but if not, not!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> We must say that different 
          Tana'im taught these Mishnayos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Tana of our Mishnah holds that the widows fall 
               to Yibum at the time of death. The Tana of the other 
               Mishnah considers the fall to begin from when they 
               married.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> One Tana taught both Mishnayos. Mishnah 
          #2 teaches something which follows from our Mishnah (all 
          the more so if he divorced before doing Yibum, the Tzaros 
          are permitted)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Anyone that could have done Mi'un...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Let her do Mi'un now, and then her Tzarah may 
          do Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> She cannot because of R. Oshaya's law (our 
          Mishnah supports him):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Oshaya):</font></b> A girl can do Mi'un to undo a Ma'amar, 
               but not to undo a fall to Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps Mi'un can undo a fall to Yibum, but 
          the case of Tzaras Ervah is different, like Rami bar 
          Yechezkel taught:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rami bar Yechezkel):</font></b> If a girl did Mi'un to her 
               husband, she may marry his father. If she did Mi'un 
               to the Yavam, she is forbidden to the father.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is because when she fell to Yibum, she looked 
               like his daughter-in-law.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  Here too, when the fell to Yibum (before Mi'un), she 
          looked like Tzaras Ervah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE MORE STRINGENT 'ARAYOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Six Arayos are more stringent than the 15 (Daf 
          2A). Since these six can marry others (but not brothers 
          of the Yavam), their 'Tzaros' are permitted (they are not 
          really Tzaros, for the Ervah is not truly married):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Yavam's mother;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> His father's wife;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> His father's sister;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> His paternal sister;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> The wife of his father's brother;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> The wife of his paternal brother.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Shamai permit a Tzarah (of Ervah) to the brothers;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel forbid.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'MI'UN' AFTER THE MARRIAGE IS OVER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses a case in which Reuven's wife is a Ketanah (minor) and an Ervah to Reuven's brother Shimon (for example, she is Shimon's daughter). When Reuven dies, the Tzarah must do <i>Chalitzah</i>. Although the Ervah normally exempts the Tzarah completely when they fall to Yibum together, in this case the Tzarah is not exempted completely because the Ketanah has the ability to uproot her relationship retroactively through 'Mi'un' so that the Tzarah will no longer be the Tzarah of an Ervah.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that even if the Ketanah uproots her marriage through Mi'un, the Tzarah may not do <i>Yibum</i> because from the time of the husband's death, the Tzarah appeared to be the Tzarah of Shimon's daughter (since his daughter originally fell to Yibum). In order to prevent people from mistakenly permitting the Tzarah of one's <i>adult</i> daughter who falls to Yibum, the Rabanan disallowed Yibum for the Tzarah of one's minor daughter who performed Mi'un.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Hachi Nami; 12a, DH mi'She'as Nefilah and DH Mishum Tzaras Bito) explains that when the Gemara says that the girl can uproot her marriage through Mi'un, it refers to an act of Mi'un with <i>her father</i> to whom she fell to Yibum. She performs Mi'un by declaring that she does not want the original Kidushin to take effect because it will cause her to fall to her father for Yibum.
</p><p>
How can the girl do Mi'un with her father? She does not fall to him for Yibum at all since she is an Ervah to him. She has no Zikah to her father which would need to be removed through Mi'un!
</p><p>
Moreover, even if the Mi'un which the girl does is not with her father (as Rashi explains) but is with her original husband (who died), how can Mi'un be done to a marriage which no longer exists? Once her first husband dies, nothing is left of the marriage. How, then, can Mi'un be done with the first husband?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> (12a) explains that Rashi is not saying that the girl does Mi'un to break the relationship that she now has with her father as a result of Zikah, because there is no Zikah to her father. Rather, Rashi means that her declaration of Mi'un revokes the original Kidushin with her first husband.
</p><p>
The Ritva apparently understands that Mi'un may be performed after the husband has died (and, according to the Ritva, this is the intent of Rashi).
</p><p>
(b) The Ritva cites other Rishonim who maintain that Mi'un works to uproot only a marriage which still exists. Mi'un cannot uproot a marriage which no longer exists (such as after the husband died). The case in which the Gemara suggests that the daughter of the Yavam does Mi'un after the death of her husband is when there are other brothers besides her father (i.e. her uncles), and thus there is a binding Zikah to the other brothers. Since there is a Zikah to the other brothers, she may do Mi'un with one of them to remove the Zikah.
</p><p>
(c) Rashi's words, however, do not reflect either of these explanations. Perhaps Rashi means as follows:
</p><p>
In an ordinary case of an Ervah who falls to Yibum, the mechanism by which the Ervah removes the Zikah from all of the Tzaros is by falling to the Yavam and then uprooting the Zikah <i>entirely</i>, even for the Tzaros. In contrast, when a woman who is exempt from Yibum does not fall to Yibum at all in the first place (such as an Aylonis; see Insights to Yevamos 12:1), she does not exempt the Tzaros at all. In the case of the Gemara here, the Ervah falls to Yibum and then uproots the Zikah.
</p><p>
When Rashi writes that the girl performs Mi'un with her father, he means that she performs Mi'un with her first husband to avoid the initial stage of falling to her father for Yibum in the first place so that she will not uproot the Zikah entirely. The Tzarah is then left with an obligation to do Yibum or Chalitzah.
</p><p>
How, though, can the girl perform Mi'un to end a marriage that is already over? The answer is that as long as there are some effects left over from the fact that she fell to her father for Yibum when her husband died, she still may perform Mi'un to retroactively prevent herself from falling to him. In this case, her initial falling to Yibum effected a removal of the Zikah and an exemption for her Tzarah from Yibum and Chalitzah. Since that effect remains, she still may perform Mi'un to prevent herself from falling to him and thereby obligate her Tzarah to do Yibum.
</p><p>
A similar concept exists in the laws of Nedarim. One may not rescind a Neder once it is no longer pertinent (for example, one vowed not to eat a certain item, he then transgressed the Neder and ate the item, and now he wants to rescind his Neder through Hataras Nedarim). If, however, witnesses warned him before he transgressed the Neder, and now he is Chayav Malkus for transgressing the Neder, he <i>may</i> annul the Neder to prevent the <i>effects</i> of the Neder (i.e. Malkus) from taking place.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If a Tzarah did Chalitzah, Beis Shamai disqualify her 
          from Kehunah (marrying a Kohen);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If she did Yibum, Beis Shamai permit her to Kehunah (if 
          later she was widowed);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel forbid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Even though Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argued, they 
          would not refrain from marrying women of the opposing 
          school.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Even though in many laws of Taharah, one school is 
          Metaher and the other is Metamei, each school trusted the 
          Taharah of Kelim of the other school.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE SOURCE FOR BEIS SHAMAI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - R. Shimon ben Pazi):</font></b> Beis Shamai learns from 
          'Lo Sihyeh Eshes ha'Mes <i>ha'Chutzah</i> l'Ish Zar'. This 
          implies that there are <i>insiders</i> (Tzaros) that may not 
          marry someone else (rather, they do Yibum);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel expound the verse as Rav Yehudah does:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If a stranger was Mekadesh a Yevamah, 
               it does not take effect. '<i>Lo Sihyeh</i>...' - she 
               cannot have Havayah (Kidushin) to a stranger. 
               (Havayah and Sihyeh come from the same root.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Beis Shamai disagree, for it says 'ha'Chutzah'. It does 
          not say 'la'Chutz (to a stranger)'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel say that since there is a 'Hei' at the end of 
          the word, it is as if it says 'la'Chutz':
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Nechemyah):</font></b> The Torah (sometimes) puts 
               a 'Hei' at the end of a word that should have the 
               prefix 'Lamed' (to mean 'to').
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> Some examples are 
               'Mitzraimah', 'Midbarah'...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Beis Shamai learn Rav Yehudah's law from 'l'Ish Zar'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why don't Beis Hillel also learn from there?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction:</font></b> They actually do.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, what do they learn from 'ha'Chutzah'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This includes a widow that was only Mekudeshes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai learns this from the extra 'Hei' at the 
               end of  'Chutz'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel do not expound the 'Hei', for they do 
               not consider it to be extra.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The reason for Beis Shamai is Ein Isur Chal Al 
          Isur (an Isur does not take effect on something already 
          forbidden).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  We understand this if Reuven married Rachel before his 
          brother Shimon married her sister Leah (and Reuven died);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rachel does not become forbidden to Shimon due to 
               Achos Ishto (his wife's sister), since she was 
               already forbidden (Eshes Ach, his brother's wife. 
               Therefore, Rachel's Tzarah is not considered Tzaras 
               Ervah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But if Shimon married Leah before Reuven 
          married Rachel, Achos Ishto took effect on Rachel (her 
          Tzarah should be considered Tzaras Ervah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since the Isur of Eshes Ach did not take effect 
          on her (since she was already forbidden), we do not 
          consider her Tzarah to be Tzaras Ervah in the situation 
          of Yibum, therefore her Tzarah is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Tzarah did Chalitzah...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does the Mishnah need to teach that Beis 
          Hillel permit her to Kehunah? They say that there was no 
          need for Chalitzah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah teaches unlike R. Yochanan ben Nuri, 
          who suggested enacting that in every case of Tzaras 
          Ervah, Chalitzah should be done (so that all marriages 
          will be valid according to both schools. R. Yochanan ben 
          Nuri would disqualify from Kehunah, since he holds that 
          Chalitzah was necessary, mid'Rabanan.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she did Yibum, Beis Hillel disqualify her 
          from Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is this needed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since we taught the law regarding Chalitzah, we 
          also teach regarding Yibum.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>FACTIONS WITHIN YISRAEL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Megilah is read on the 11th, 12th, 13th, 
          14th, and 15th.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Reish Lakish):</font></b> This transgresses 'Lo Sisgodedu' 
          - do not have differing factions!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'Lo Sisgodedu' forbids wounding oneself in 
               grief over a deceased!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'Lo Segodedu' would have taught that. The 
               Torah wrote 'Lo Sisgodedu' to forbid factions.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps it comes only to teach this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> If so, it should have said 'Lo Sagodu'. 
               Since it says 'Lo Sisgodedu', we learn both.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Counter-question:</font></b> (R. Yochanan): Why didn't you ask from 
          a prior Mishnah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> Where the custom is do work on Erev 
               Pesach, we work until noon. Where the custom is not 
               to work, we do not work.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> I asked regarding an Isur. Why 
          do you suggest I should ask regarding a custom?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Shemen bar Aba):</font></b> 'To fulfill... in their times' 
               - Chachamim enacted many times (to read Megilas 
               Esther).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Also working on Erev Pesach is an Isur!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> Beis Shamai forbid working the previous 
               night;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel permit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> If one does not work it looks 
          like he has no work to do (so it is not a problem of 
          factions).
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>FACTIONS WITHIN YISRAEL (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In our Mishnah, Beis Shamai permit the Tzaros 
          to the brothers and Beis Hillel forbid them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Beis Shamai did not follow their 
          own teachings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Beis Shamai followed their own teachings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Rav and Shmuel also argued about this. Rav says that Beis 
          Shamai did not follow their own teachings, and Shmuel 
          says that they did.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Regarding what period do they argue?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Before the Bas Kol (voice from Shamayim that 
               announced that the Halachah follows Beis Hillel), 
               all should agree they followed their teachings;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> After the Bas Kol, all should agree they did not 
               follow their teachings!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> They argue about before the Bas Kol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel were the majority. This explains why 
               Reish Lakish says that Beis Shamai did not follow 
               their own teachings;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan says that Beis Shamai followed their own 
               teachings. We follow the majority among equal 
               Chachamim, but Beis Shamai were sharper.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> They argue about after the Bas Kol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish says that Beis Shamai did not follow 
               their own teachings due to the Bas Kol;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan holds like R. Yehoshua, who says that we 
               do not heed a Bas Kol.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to the opinion that Beis Shamai 
          followed their own teachings, this transgresses 'Lo 
          Sisgodedu'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> The Isur applies only to two Batei Din 
          in one city, when one rules like Beis Shamai and one like 
          Beis Hillel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Batei Din in different cities may rule differently.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel are like 
          opposing Batei Din in the same city!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The Isur is when half the judges on a 
          Beis Din in a city rule like Beis Shamai, and half rule 
          like Beis Hillel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We may have two opposing Batei Din in one city.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>FOLLOWING THE SAGE OF THE REGION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> In R. Eliezer's region, they would 
          cut trees on Shabbos to make coals to forge a knife for 
          circumcision. In R. Yosi ha'Galili's region they ate fowl 
          with milk.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Trees were cut in R. Eliezer's region, but not in R. 
               Akiva's.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</font></b> Any Melachah that can be done 
               before Shabbos is not permitted on Shabbos (for the 
               sake of Milah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We said that different regions may conduct 
          differently!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What was the intent of the one who asked the 
          question?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He thought that because Shabbos is so stringent, 
          it is like one place (all places must conduct the same 
          way).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When R. Avahu would visit R. Yehoshua ben 
          Levi's region he would move a lamp on Shabbos. He would 
          not do so in R. Yochanan's region. (This shows that the 
          practice was different in the two regions!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This is no question. We said that different 
          regions may conduct differently!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Response:</font></b> The question is, how could R. Avahu be 
          inconsistent!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Really, he holds like R. Yehoshua ben Levi. In R. 
          Yochanan's area he conducted stringently to show honor to 
          R. Yochanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> He should have been concerned that his 
          attendant will not know this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He told his attendant.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DISPUTE OF BEIS HILLEL AND BEIS SHAMAI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Even though these prohibit and these permit, 
          men of Beis Shamai did not refrain from marrying women of 
          Beis Hillel and vice-versa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b>  If Beis Shamai did not follow their own 
          teachings, we understand how they could intermarry. But 
          if they followed their own teachings, how could they 
          intermarry? (Beis Shamai says that Tzaras Ervah does 
          Yibum or Chalitzah; Beis Hillel exempts.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Granted, Beis Shamai could marry women of Beis 
               Hillel. Beis Shamai consider the children of Tzaras 
               Ervah (who married without Yibum or Chalitzah) like 
               children of Chayavei Lavin, and it is permitted to 
               marry them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But how could Beis Hillel marry women of Beis 
               Shamai? Beis Hillel say that Yibum of Tzaras Ervah 
               is Chayavei Kerisos, and the children are Mamzerim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the Tana holds that Arayos of 
               Kares do not make Mamzerim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> R. Elazar taught that even though Beis 
               Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about Tzaros, they 
               agree that Mamzerim come only from Arayos punishable 
               by Kares!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> We must say that Beis Shamai did not follow 
          their own teachings!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Really, they followed their own teachings. 
          Members of Beis Shamai would inform Beis Hillel if there 
          had been cases of Tzaras Ervah in the family, and they 
          would not intermarry in such cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Seifa):</font></b> In spite of all the disputes about 
          Tum'ah, members of each school would rely on Taharos of 
          the other school.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE PROHIBITION OF 'LO SISGODEDU'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Reish Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan (13b) on what basis does the Mishnah in Megilah (2a) permit different groups of Jews to read Megilas Esther at different times. Why does the Mishnah's teaching not conflict with the prohibition of 'Lo Sisgodedu' (Devarim 14:1), which forbids different groups of Jews from conducting themselves with differing Halachic practices?
</p><p>
After the Gemara cites numerous other examples in which there are different practices among the Jewish people, Abaye explains why those different practices do not conflict with the prohibition of 'Lo Sisgodedu.' The prohibition of 'Lo Sisgodedu' applies only to rulings issued by two courts in <i>one</i> city. When two courts in two different cities issue different rulings, the prohibition of 'Lo Sisgodedu' does not apply.
</p><p>
Rava answers that 'Lo Sisgodedu' applies only when one court in one city issues two different rulings; one half of the court rules one way and the other half rules another way. According to Rava, different rulings issued by two courts even in one city do not constitute 'Lo Sisgodedu.'
<br> 
<br>The answers of Abaye and Rava explain why Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel acted with different Halachic practices in their respective places (they were like two different courts). How, though, do their answers explain why 'Lo Sisgodedu' does not apply to the reading of the Megilah? The villagers (Bnei Kefarim) read the Megilah on the 'Yom ha'Kenisah,' the days on which they come into the city (Mondays and Thursdays, when the courts convene), which may be a day other than the fourteenth or fifteenth of Adar, the day on which the city-dwellers read the Megilah. The Chachamim enacted this leniency for the villagers (Megilah 4b) to enable them to hear the Megilah read by someone (a city-dweller) who knows how to read the Megilah (<b>RASHI</b> to Megilah 2a, DH Ela sheha'Kefarim). Consequently, two groups of Jews in the <i>same city</i> read the Megilah at two different times! According to Abaye, why does this not constitute a violation of 'Lo Sisgodedu'? Similarly, according to Rava, if a city-dweller reads the Megilah for the villagers, it is akin to one court in one city doing two different practices. Why is it permitted?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ROSH</b> (1:9) answers that, according to Rava, the villagers' Megilah-reading in the city on an earlier day is not comparable to one court that is split in its ruling, because the villagers do <i>not</i> have a city-dweller read for them. Rather, they read the Megilah for themselves, and the only reason why they read in the city is that in the villages they do not gather together for a Minyan. According to Rava, the villagers' Megilah-reading in the city is comparable to two courts in one city, and it does not constitute 'Lo Sisgodedu.'
</p><p>
How does Abaye, who maintains that there <i>is</i> a problem of 'Lo Sisgodedu' when two courts in one city issue different rulings, answer the question? The <b>RASHBA</b> writes that the Gemara indeed could have asked this question on Abaye and said that his answer addresses only the other cases of different practices and not the question from Megilah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> quotes <b>RABEINU CHAIM</b> who answers, based on the Yerushalmi, that when the Mishnah in Megilah says that the villagers read the Megilah on Mondays or Thursdays (and not necessarily on the fourteenth or fifteenth of Adar), it does not mean that they enter the cities to read, but rather that they read in their villages. They used to gather together in their synagogues on Mondays and Thursdays but not during the rest of the week. The Chachamim enacted that they may read in their villages on Mondays or Thursdays when they gather together in the synagogues. Therefore, even according to Abaye, the Mishnah's allowance for different groups to read the Megilah at different times is comparable to two courts in two different cities, and thus there is no problem of 'Lo Sisgodedu.'
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> adds that even if the villagers read the Megilah in the city, the city-dwellers and the villagers still can be considered like two courts in two different cities. The villagers' different appearance makes it evident that they are from the village, and everyone knows that they have a different practice. Their reading of the Megilah on a different date does not constitute 'Lo Sisgodedu' because they are like a separate, small city inside the large city which has a different practice. The <b>RAMBAN</b> adds that they are like a separate city even when they are in the large city because they stay in a specific section of the city and everyone sees that they are separate from the rest of the city. (This approach also explains why there is no problem of 'Lo Sisgodedu' even when a city-dweller reads for the villagers in the city, as Rashi in Megilah says.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ROSH</b> suggests another answer. The original enactment of when to read the Megilah stated that the Megilah may be read in different places on different days. The different practices pose no problem of 'Lo Sisgodedu,' because the enactment itself declared that in different places there should be different practices. The enactment applies to the place, not the person; the enactment states that places should act with different practices, and not that people should act with different practices.
</p><p>
The Rosh adds that according to this understanding, Reish Lakish's question from Megilah was not a valid question and that is why Rebbi Yochanan did not relate to it. Instead, Rebbi Yochanan told him that he should have asked from the different practices with regard to working on the day before Pesach. Rebbi Yochanan's intention was to show Reish Lakish that his question from Megilah was not valid, and that a valid question would have been from the different practices with regard to performing Melachah on Erev Pesach.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that the question from Megilah is not from the practice of the villagers at all. Rather, the question is from the practice of the unwalled cities and the walled cities, who read the Megilah on the fourteenth and fifteenth, respectively. The villagers are able to read on the fourteenth if they want; they are not restricted to Mondays and Thursdays. When the Gemara in Megilah says that the Chachamim made an enactment as a leniency for the village people, it means that they <i>allowed</i> them to read on the 'Yom ha'Kenisah' but did not <i>require</i> them to do so. Since they may choose to read on the fourteenth, everyone knows that when they read earlier they are not observing a different law, but rather they are merely taking advantage of the leniency which the Chachamim gave them.
</p><p>
Since Reish Lakish's question was from the different practices of reading on the fourteenth and fifteenth -- when the Megilah is read in <i>two different places</i>, the answers of Abaye and Rava are valid.
</p><p>
The Rashba infers from the words of Rashi (13b, DH Amina) that Rashi also understood Reish Lakish's question in this way. When Rashi explains the question, he writes that the problem of 'Lo Sisgodedu' is from the fact that 'some read the Megilah on the fourteenth and some read on the fifteenth.'
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE INCONSISTENT CONDUCT OF AN INDIVIDUAL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara continues its discussion whether in practice people may follow different rulings of different authorities. The Gemara records the practice of Rebbi Avahu, who acted in a lenient manner when he was in the city of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (and carried a lamp on Shabbos), and acted in a stringent manner when he was in the city of Rebbi Yochanan (and did not carry a lamp on Shabbos). The Gemara asks what basis did he have to follow two opposing rulings.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that Rebbi Avahu ruled in practice like the lenient view. The only reason he followed the stringent view was out of respect for Rebbi Yochanan who ruled that way.
</p><p>
The Gemara continues and asks what basis did he have to conduct himself stringently in one place and leniently in another, when his attendant will see him carry in one place and, as a result, will carry even in the place of Rebbi Yochanan. The Gemara answers that the attendant was informed about Rebbi Avahu's practice.
</p><p>
The Gemara is difficult to understand. How is the discussion of Rebbi Avahu's conduct related to the subject of the Sugya? The Sugya discusses the prohibition of 'Lo Sisgodedu,' the public divergence in Halachic practice, but this incident involves the contradictory acts of a single person.
</p><p>
Moreover, why does the Gemara assume that Rebbi Avahu never informed his attendant about his practice? It seems unlikely that he never taught the Halachah to his attendant and never told him that he was stringent only in the place of Rebbi Yochanan.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Gemara's question (and its reason for discussing the practice of Rebbi Avahu in the first place) is based on the conduct of Rebbi Avahu's attendant. The Gemara had no doubt that Rebbi Avahu acted stringently merely out of respect for Rebbi Yochanan. Rather, the Gemara's question is that some people may not realize why Rebbi Avahu changed his practice from place to place, and they might mistakenly learn from his conduct that one may be lenient even in a place where the practice is to be stringent. If Rebbi Avahu sought to show respect to Rebbi Yochanan, he should not have carried a lamp <i>anywhere</i>, even outside of the city of Rebbi Yochanan, so that the people accompanying him should not learn from him and assume that one is permitted to carry a lamp even in a place where the practice is to be stringent. The <b>RITVA</b> points out that this is the intention of <b>RASHI</b> as well.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> (see also <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and <b>RITVA</b>) explains that if 'Lo Sisgodedu' prohibits the people in one place from having two different practices, it should also prohibit <i>one person</i> from having two different practices in two places.
</p><p>
These two answers appear to disagree about the nature of the prohibition of 'Lo Sisgodedu.' Is the intent of the prohibition to prevent discord among the <i>people</i>, lest it appear as though they are not serving Hash-m together, or is the intent of the prohibition to prevent an affront to the honor of the <i>Torah</i>, lest its honor be lowered when people see two different practices observed?
</p><p>
Rashi understands that the prohibition of 'Lo Sisgodedu' prevents discord among the people and prohibits doing something which gives the impression that the Jews follow two different sets of law. For this reason, he explains that the Gemara's question is that Rebbi Avahu's attendant might learn from Rebbi Avahu to conduct himself leniently even in a city that is stringent.
</p><p>
In contrast, the Tosfos ha'Rosh understands that the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent divergence in the observance of the Torah, which may cause dishonor to the Torah. The Tosfos ha'Rosh says that just as two people in one place may not have two different practices, one person is not permitted to have two different practices in two places. If one person is inconsistent in his conduct, he will cause the honor of the Torah to be diminished. The Gemara asks that when the attendant will see the differing practices of Rebbi Avahu, his respect for the Torah will be diminished.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We understand this if they would inform each other 
               (if the Taharos were Tamei according to the other 
               school). But if they did not inform each other, how 
               could they rely on each other?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tosfos' text):</font></b> It is not difficult how Beis Hillel 
               could rely on Beis Shamai. (Whenever they argue), 
               Beis Hillel are Metaher, Beis Shamai are Metamei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> But how could Beis Shamai rely on Beis Hillel? They 
               are Metamei what Beis Hillel considers Tahor!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Conclusion:</font></b> They must have informed each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is the proof from Taharos better than the 
          proof from intermarriage?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might have thought that Tzaros become known 
          (but they did not rely on informing each other).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> Even though Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel 
          argue about Tzaros, they agree that Mamzerim come only 
          from Arayos punishable by Kares.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who admit to whom?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Beis Shamai admit to Beis Hillel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> If Tzaras Ervah married without Yibum or 
               Chalitzah, this is only Chayavei Lavin (according to 
               Beis Shamai), obviously the children are not 
               Mamzerim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, Beis Hillel admit to Beis Shamai.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If Tzaras Ervah did Yibum this is Chayavei 
          Kerisos (the children are Mamzerim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Really, Beis Shamai admit to Beis Hillel. R. 
          Elazar comes to disagree with R. Akiva, who says that the 
          children of Chayavei Lavin are Mamzerim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argued about the 
          following: Tzaros, sisters (who fall to Yibum together - 
          26a), a Get Yashan (the couple were alone together 
          between the writing and the giving of the Get), a Safek 
          Eshes Ish (Mi'un after Nisu'in), one who divorced on 
          condition that he will die from his current illness, a 
          divorced couple who spent the night in an inn, and 
          Kidushin with a Perutah or something worth a Perutah. 
          Nevertheless, Beis Shamai did not refrain from marrying 
          women of Beis Hillel, and vice-versa. This shows that 
          they conducted with dearness and friendship to each other 
          - 'Veha'Emes veha'Shalom Ehavu';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Shimon:</font></b> Each school would refrain when certain (that 
          something is forbidden to them because the other school's 
          ruling had been followed), but not when unsure.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If Beis Shamai followed their own teachings, we 
          understand why they refrained;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But if they did not follow their own teachings, why 
               did they refrain?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question:</font></b> Is this logical? Even if they 
               followed their own teachings, this explains only why 
               Beis Hillel refrained from women of Beis Shamai, 
               since they descend from Chayavei Kerisos. It does 
               not explain why Beis Shamai refrained from women of 
               Beis Hillel. They are Bnei Chayavei Lavin, so they 
               are permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We answer like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said 
          (elsewhere), they would refrain from marrying the Tzarah 
          herself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did they refrain only from certain problems 
          - even doubtful problems are forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, they didn't refrain in a Stam case 
          (when they did not know that it was forbidden to them), 
          for each would inform the other (when it was forbidden to 
          them).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Presumably, this teaches that they acted with 
          dearness and friendship to each other. This is like the 
          first Tana!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, R. Shimon taught the entire Beraisa.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN ENACTMENT TO UNIFY THE SCHOOLS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yochanan ben Nuri):</font></b> Whom should we follow 
          (regarding Tzaras Ervah)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If we follow Beis Shamai (and allow Yibum), the 
               child is a Mamzer according to Beis Hillel;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If we follow Beis Hillel, the child is blemished 
               according to Beis Shamai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We should enact that the Tzarah should do Chalitzah 
               and not Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  They were unable to make the enactment in time.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel:</font></b> What should we do for previous 
          Tzaros?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If Beis Shamai followed their teachings, we 
          understand this. But if they didn't, what was his 
          concern?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> He was concerned for 
          the Tzarah herself (not for her children);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> What should we do for Tzaros of Beis Hillel (who 
               remarried without Chalitzah) according to Beis 
               Shamai?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If we require them to do Chalitzah, their husbands 
               will despise them! We cannot do so, for  '(Torah's) 
               ways are pleasant... its paths are Shalom!'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DID BEIS SHAMAI FOLLOW THEIR TEACHINGS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Tarfon):</font></b> I desire that a Tzaras ha'Bas will 
          come to my hands. I will marry her (do Yibum, like Beis 
          Shamai. This shows that they followed their own 
          teachings!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Rather, he said that he will marry her off (to 
          others, like Beis Hillel).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, what was his great desire?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He desired to demonstrate that we do not hold 
          like R. Yochanan ben Nuri.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> It happened that R. Gamliel's daughter married 
          his brother, and his brother died without children. R. 
          Gamliel did Yibum with the Tzarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> R. Gamliel was from Beis Hillel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> His daughter was an Ailonis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Seifa - Others):</font></b> She was an Ailonis.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that the first Tana holds that she was 
               not an Ailonis!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> They argue about whether or not her husband 
          knew that she was an Ailonis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> They argue about whether or not an Ervah 
          forbids a Tzarah if the Ervah was divorced after her 
          husband married the Tzarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> They argue about whether or not Bi'ah may be 
          done on condition (i.e. if she is an Ailonis, Bi'ah 
          should not be Kidushin).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Mesharshiya - Beraisa):</font></b> It once occurred 
          that R. Akiva picked an Esrog on the first of Shevat and 
          took two tithes, one like Beis Shamai and one like Beis 
          Hillel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that Beis Shamai followed their own 
               teachings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (No, R. Akiva wanted to follow Beis Hillel.) He 
          was unsure if Beis Hillel hold that Shevat 1 is Rosh 
          Hashanah for trees, or Shevat 15.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mar Zutra - Mishnah):</font></b> Shamai's daughter-in-law 
          gave birth on Sukos. He enlarged the Sukah to make room 
          for the baby.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This proves that they followed their own teachings!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One cannot learn from there, for one who saw 
          would think that he wanted more air.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mar Zutra - Mishnah):</font></b> There was a stone through 
          which water flowed into a Mikveh; all Taharos in 
          Yerushalayim relied on this Mikveh. Beis Shamai enlarged 
          the hole, since they hold that the majority must be open.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> Mikva'os may be joined by an opening as 
               big as Shefoferes ha'Nod (the circumference of a 
               hollow reed put into a leather pouch from which one 
               draws out the liquid), i.e. a circle two fingers 
               wide.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that Beis Shamai followed their own 
               teachings.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'SHOKES YEHU' -- THE TROUGH OF YEHU</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that there was a Shokes, or trough, in Yerushalayim that was used for immersing vessels to be used with Taharos, known as 'the Trough of Yehu.' The trough was filled with water and was connected to a Mikvah by way of a hole which had the diameter of a 'Shefoferes ha'Nod.'
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Shokes) explains that the trough was a hollowed-out stone situated beneath a pipe which brought water to the hollow stone from the mountains. He explains (DH Na'asim Al Gabah) that the trough did not contain forty Se'ah of water, but it was connected to an adjacent 'Mikvah Shalem' (a complete Mikvah with forty Se'ah). Rashi then writes, 'and [the water] of <i>the spring the Shokes</i> (sic) mixed by way of the hole that was like a Shefoferes ha'Nod.'
</p><p>
Rashi's words are unclear. What does Rashi mean when he mentions a 'spring' ('Ma'ayan')? Does he mean the Mikvah next to the Shokes, and his intention is to say that the Mikvah's source was a natural spring ('The water of the spring [adjacent to the Shokes] <i>and</i> the [water in the] Shokes mixed...')? If this is Rashi's intention, why does Rashi (and the Gemara) call it a '<i>Mikvah</i> Shalem' with forty Se'ah? A natural spring is valid for the immersion of utensils with <i>any</i> amount of water, and it is <i>not</i> called a 'Mikvah.' Moreover, how does Rashi know that the water next to the Shokes came from a spring? (<b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>)
</p><p>
If, on the other hand, Rashi refers to the water inside the trough when he mentions a 'spring' and he means that the water in the trough came from a spring in the mountain and not from a flow of rainwater ('The water of the spring <i>in</i> the Shokes mixed [with the adjacent Mikvah]...'), the same questions arise. If the water in the trough came from a spring, then the trough was valid for Tevilah even without forty Se'ah of water, but Rashi writes that it was invalid for Tevilah because it held only twenty Se'ah. Moreover, how does Rashi know that the water in the trough came from a spring? (<b>YASHRESH YAKOV</b>)
</p><p>
The Gemara continues and says that when two Mikva'os are attached to each other by a hole with the width of a Shefoferes ha'Nod, they are considered to join together to be one Mikvah. Rashi (DH Eiruv Mikva'os) explains that this Halachah refers to a Mikvah which lacks the minimum Shi'ur of a Mikvah, which is situated next to a Mikvah which contains the proper Shi'ur (forty Se'ah) of water. When the waters mix, the Mikvah with less than forty Se'ah becomes a complete Mikvah by virtue of its connection to the complete Mikvah next to it.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi explain the case of two Mikva'os connected to each other as a case in which one Mikvah has a full Shi'ur of forty Se'ah and the other lacks the full Shi'ur? Even if <i>both</i> Mikva'os lack the minimum Shi'ur and contain only twenty Se'ah each, the hole joins them to form a complete Shi'ur of a Mikvah! (<b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> understands that Rashi means to say that the water in the Mikvah next to the trough was the water of a natural spring (like the first interpretation mentioned above). The Ritva, however, disagrees with Rashi's explanation because of the reasons mentioned above. The Ritva adds that in order to connect the water of a trough (Mikvah) to spring water (Ma'ayan), the hole between the two must be <i>larger</i> than the size of a Shefoferes ha'Nod. (The opinion of the Ritva is based on the Yerushalmi.)
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps Rashi refers to the water <i>inside</i> the trough when he mentions a 'spring' (like the second interpretation mentioned above). The Mishnah in the end of the fourth chapter of Mikva'os discusses the Trough of Yehu. The first Mishnah in the following chapter begins, 'A spring which was directed to the trough is not valid for Tevilah. If the spring flowed over the edge of the trough, it becomes valid for Tevilah....' Rashi apparently understands that the Mishnah in chapter five refers to the same trough as the one mentioned in the previous Mishnah (which ascribes no name to it, but which the Gemara here calls 'the Trough of Yehu'). The Mishnah there is the source for Rashi's assertion that the water in the Trough of Yehu came from a spring.
</p><p>
Even though its water was springwater, the trough was not valid for Tevilah with less than forty Se'ah because the springwater did not flow into the trough at all times. In order for a trough to be joined to a spring, the water must flow into it constantly. If the water does not flow into the trough constantly, it is considered cut off from the spring and has the status of an ordinary Mikvah. In the case of the Trough of Yehu, the water stopped flowing on occasion, and therefore it was valid only if it contained forty Se'ah.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi mentions that the springwater flowed from a 'pipe' from the mountains to teach that there was a second reason to invalidate the trough for Tevilah had it not been connected to another Mikvah. The reason is that the water inside the trough is 'Mayim She'uvin' (water drawn to the Mikvah via a Kli such as a pipe, which is invalid water for a Mikvah). Rashi says that the water came to the trough through a pipe because the Mishnah in Mikva'os (end of chapter four) implies that the trough contained 'Mayim She'uvin' (as the <b>ME'IRI</b> here writes).
</p><p>
(Rashi could have given another explanation for how the water inside the trough was 'Mayim She'uvin': When a trough is not a hollowed-out stone but a vessel that was attached to the ground <i>after</i> it was formed into a usable vessel, any water inside that vessel is considered 'Mayim She'uvin,' as the Mishnah in Mikva'os teaches (ibid.). Perhaps Rashi does not give this explanation because the Mishnayos in Mikva'os in the beginning of chapter five (which Rashi understands to refer to the Trough of Yehu) imply that the trough was not a vessel but a hollow stone.)
</p><p>
This approach explains why Rashi (DH Eiruv Mikva'os) writes that a hole connects two Mikva'os when one of the Mikva'os contains a full forty Se'ah of water and the other lacks that minimum amount. In the case of the Trough of Yehu, the water in the trough was 'Mayim She'uvin.' As such, it was invalid for Tevilah and could not join with another incomplete Mikvah (of twenty Se'ah) to make a total of forty Se'ah. 'Mayim She'uvin' may be <i>added</i> to a <i>complete</i> Mikvah which already contains forty Se'ah, but it cannot supplement the Shi'ur of a Mikvah which lacks forty Se'ah. Rashi gives as an example an invalid Mikvah which is joined to one which contains forty Se'ah, because that case parallels the case of the trough discussed in the Mishnah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There, it appeared that they wanted more water to 
          flow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Tzadok once sent olives to R. Yochanan ben 
          Hachorani. When R. Yochanan saw that they were wet he 
          said that he does not eat olives. R. Tzadok informed him 
          that they were collected in a punctured basket that 
          became sealed with sediment:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> There is no need to 
               puncture a basket of densely packed olives (the 
               liquid that exudes is not Machshir);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel says, it must be punctured (to show that 
               he does not want the liquid, for otherwise it is 
               Machshir);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel agree that if it was punctured and 
               became sealed with sediment, it is not Machshir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Even though R. Tzadok was from Beis Shamai, he acted 
               according to Beis Hillel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> If Beis Shamai followed their 
               own teachings, we understand why it was recorded 
               that R. Tzadok acted like Beis Hillel. But if they 
               did not, there was no need to say this!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TZARAS' 'ERVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> They asked R. Yehoshua about the law 
          of a Tzaras ha'Bas.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about 
               this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The questioner:</font></b> Whom does the Halachah follow?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> You seek to put my head between two 
               great mountains. I fear to answer, lest they 
               (children whom I say are Mamzerim) kill me! I can 
               testify about two great families in Yerushalayim 
               that came from Tzaras Ervah (that remarried without 
               Yibum or Chalitzah) and members of these families 
               served as Kohen Gadol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> If they followed their teachings, we understand R. 
               Yehoshua's fear. But if not, why was he afraid? 
               (This question is not answered.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Counter-question:</font></b> Even if they followed their teachings, 
          why was he afraid?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yehoshua):</font></b> A Mamzer results only from Arayos 
               punishable by Misas Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Granted, (he holds that) the child (of Tzaras 
          Ervah) is not a Mamzer, but a Kal va'Chomer teaches that 
          his lineage is Pagum (forbidden to Kehunah):
<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. 
               Tzaras Ervah is Shavah b'Chol, all the more so the 
               child is Pagum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yehoshua was asked about Tzaras Ervah. Why 
          did he answer about the children?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They asked two questions.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> What is the Halachah regarding Tzaras Ervah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the Halachah follows Beis Hillel, if Tzaras Ervah 
               married without Yibum or Chalitzah, what do Beis 
               Shamai say about the children?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did they ask the second question? (If the 
          Halachah follows Beis Hillel, why are we concerned for 
          Beis Shamai's opinion?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches about Machazir Gerushaso (after his 
          ex-wife married someone else):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Do we say, when a widow marries a Kohen Gadol, even 
               though the Isur is not Shavah b'Chol the child is 
               Pagum, and all the more so the child of Machazir 
               Gerushaso is Pagum, for the Isur is Shavah b'Chol?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps the Kal va'Chomer is invalid. There, the 
               widow herself becomes Pagum. In our case, she does 
               not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua testified about Bnei Tzaros (that some 
               were Kohanim Gedolim).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) REBBI TZADOK'S OLIVES AND REBBI YOCHANAN HA'CHORANI'S CAUTION</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok related that his father once sent olives with him to Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani. Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani did not want to eat them because he was afraid they were Tamei (and he had the practice of eating Chulin Al Taharas ha'Kodesh). Rebbi Elazar's father assured him that the olives were not Tamei, even though they were wet and looked as though they had become fit to become Tamei (Huchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah). He said that they were wet only because the drainage hole of the barrel of olives, through which the unwanted secretion of the olives usually flowed out, became blocked. Since he had punctured the barrel to show that he did not want the olives to become wet, the juice was not able to make them Huchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah.
</p><p>
Why did Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani think that the olives were Tamei in the first place? It was the fact that the olives were wet and were apparently Huchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH she'Hen Lachin) explains that Rebbi Yochanan feared that an Am ha'Aretz may have touched the outside of the barrel of olives and thereby rendered the olives inside Tamei mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
Rashi's words are difficult to understand. What does he mean that the fear was that an Am ha'Aretz might have made the olives Tamei by touching the outside of the barrel? An earthenware vessel (or its contents) does not become Tamei when an object of Tum'ah touches the outer side of its wall, as the Mishnah (Kelim 2:1) explicitly states. Why does Rashi explain that Rebbi Yosi ha'Chorani was concerned that an Am ha'Aretz may have touched the outside of the barrel, if such contact does not render the barrel or its contents Tamei? (<b>RITVA</b>, <b>RASHASH</b>)
</p><p>
Moreover, why does Rashi not explain simply that Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani feared that an Am ha'Aretz touched the olives <i>themselves</i> and made them Tamei? Alternatively, since Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani suspected that Rebbi Tzadok sent him olives that were Tamei and that Rebbi Tzadok was not meticulous about guarding fruit from Tum'ah, perhaps he feared that Rebbi Tzadok <i>himself</i> made them Tamei (by touching them while he was Tamei)! Why does Rashi explain that Rebbi Yochanan was concerned specifically that an Am ha'Aretz touched the barrel of olives? (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Amar Li)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> proposes the following explanation for the words of Rashi.
</p><p>
The Aruch la'Ner points out a more fundamental question on the words of the Gemara. Why did Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani suspect Rebbi Tzadok of sending Tamei fruit to him? Rebbi Tzadok was a Kohen who ate Terumah all the time, and he was certainly meticulous to eat Chulin while Tahor. Why, then, did Rebbi Yochanan suspect him of sending something that could become Tamei? 
</p><p>
The Rishonim suggest different answers to this question. <b>TOSFOS</b> cites the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> who answers that Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani knew beyond a doubt that an Am ha'Aretz had handled the olives. Since the olives were wet, he saw no way that they could be Tahor. He did not suspect Rebbi Tzadok of being careless with their Taharah; he just did not understand how the olives could possibly be Tahor. Rebbi Tzadok explained to him that the olives were not Tamei and their wetness was not a sign that they had become fit to become Tamei. They were wet merely because the drainage hole in the barrel became blocked. (This appears to be the intention of the <b>ME'IRI</b> as well.)
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b>, however, understands Rashi differently. Tosfos writes that according to Rashi, Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani <i>did</i> suspect that Rebbi Tzadok had let the olives become Tamei, but not because Rebbi Tzadok was careless with their Taharah. Rather, he assumed that Rebbi Tzadok conducted himself according to the rulings of Beis Shamai (as he was a Talmid of Beis Shamai), and that Rebbi Tzadok treated the barrel of olives as Tahor even though it had <i>no</i> drainage hole in it. Beis Shamai maintains that the juice of olives never makes the olives fit to become Tamei, and thus it is not necessary to make a hole in the barrel to drain out the juice. Accordingly, Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani understood that Rebbi Tzadok considered the olives Tahor. Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani, however, followed the view of Beis Hillel who maintains that the juice of olives <i>does</i> render the olives fit to become Tamei. 
</p><p>
This answer is problematic in light of the subsequent words of the Gemara. The Beraisa ends by saying that 'even though he (Rebbi Tzadok) was a Talmid of Beis Shamai, he conducted himself in all areas like Beis Hillel.' The Gemara asks that if all of the Talmidim of Beis Shamai conducted themselves in practice in accordance with Beis Hillel and not Beis Shamai, the Beraisa teaches nothing new when it says that Rebbi Tzadok conducted himself in practice like Beis Hillel. According to Tosfos' explanation, however, the Gemara should ask a stronger question on the words of the Beraisa: if nobody followed the rulings of Beis Shamai in practice, why did Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani suspect that Rebbi Tzadok's olives were Tamei? (<b>TOSFOS MAHARAM</b>)
</p><p>
The Aruch la'Ner explains that Rashi answers this question by suggesting a new understanding of the incident. Rebbi Yochanan suspected Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok of following not the opinion of Beis Shamai, but of following <i>his own</i> opinion. (When the Beraisa says that 'he was the Talmid of Beis Shamai,' perhaps it refers not to Rebbi Tzadok but to Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani, a Talmid of Beis Shamai who conducted himself like Beis Hillel (Sukah 28a, 'Rebbi Yochanan ben ha'Choranis').) 
</p><p>
In Chagigah (20a), the Tana'im disagree about the status of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh and whether such Chulin is treated like Kodesh, Terumah, or Chulin. Although the Mishnah there implies that such Chulin is treated like Kodesh, Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok disagrees and says that it is treated like Terumah.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani and Rebbi Tzadok undoubtedly treated their Chulin with the Taharah of Kodesh, a common practice among the Tana'im (see Chagigah 18b). The Gemara in Chagigah (22b) teaches that when a Tamei liquid touches the outside of a utensil, only the outside of the utensil becomes Tamei and not the inside of the utensil. This is true, however, only for utensils which contain Chulin and Terumah. In the case of a utensil which contains Kodesh, whenever the outside of the utensil becomes Tamei the inside also becomes Tamei.
</p><p>
Accordingly, Rashi's words may be understood as follows. When Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani received the olives from Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok, he was concerned that Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok may have allowed an Am ha'Aretz to touch the outside of the barrel while it was wet. He knew that Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok maintained that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh has the status of <i>Terumah</i> for which contact with the outside of the utensil does <i>not</i> render the inside Tamei, and thus the olives inside remain Tahor. Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani himself maintained that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh has the status of <i>Kodesh</i>; just as contact with the outside of the barrel renders the inside of the barrel Tamei when the barrel contains <i>Kodesh</i>, it also renders the inside of the barrel Tamei when the barrel contains Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh (Chagigah 21b). Therefore, the olives inside the barrel, according to Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani's own view, were Tamei.
</p><p>
This approach explains why Rashi writes that Rebbi Yochanan feared that an Am ha'Aretz had touched the outside of the barrel and made it Tamei mid'Rabanan. He feared that an Am ha'Aretz had touched a liquid on the outside of the barrel which is able to be Metamei a utensil (Shabbos 15b). The reason why Rashi does not write that Rebbi Yochanan was afraid that an Am ha'Aretz had touched the <i>inside</i> of the barrel (and the olives themselves) is that he knew that Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok would not have permitted an Am ha'Aretz to touch the inside of the barrel; such contact certainly would have rendered the olives Tamei. Similarly, Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani did not suspect that Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok himself made the olives Tamei, because he certainly treated them with Taharah.
</p><p>
(The Aruch la'Ner points out that if this indeed is the intent of Rashi, it emerges that Rashi follows the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b>. Rashi here writes that the barrel in this case was a Kli Cheres, and yet it was able to become Tamei from the outside. The Rambam (Hilchos Avos ha'Tum'ah 7:3) rules that the outside of a Kli Cheres can become Tamei mid'Rabanan, like the outside of other types of utensils (in contrast to the view of the Ra'avad there).)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE LAW OF 'TZARAS' 'ERVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> In the days of R. Dosa ben Harkinas, Tzaras 
          ha'Bas was permitted to the brothers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> This proves that they followed their own 
          teachings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> In the days of R. Dosa, Tzaras ha'Bas was 
          permitted. Chachamim were very pained, because (they 
          thought that he permitted it, and) he was a great Chacham 
          but he could not come to the Beis Medrash because he was 
          blind. Three Chachamim came to him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Chachamim:</font></b> What is the law of Tzaras ha'Bas?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Dosa:</font></b> Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about this. 
          The Halachah follows Beis Hillel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Chachamim:</font></b> We heard in your name that the Halachah 
          follows Beis Shamai!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Dosa:</font></b> Did you hear this in my name, or in the name of 
          Ben Harkinas?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Chachamim:</font></b> We heard only 'Ben Harkinas'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Dosa:</font></b> It was my brother Yonasan, a student of Shamai. 
          Beware! He has 300 proofs to permit Tzaras ha'Bas. I 
          testify that Chagai the Navi said three laws in this 
          place:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Tzaras ha'Bas is forbidden;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> In Amon and Mo'av, we separate Ma'aser Oni in 
               Shemitah (the seventh year).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We accept converts from Karduyin and Tarmudim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Yonasan encountered R. Akiva and insulted him. R. Akiva 
          bore it gracefully with humility.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> In Amon and Mo'av, we separate Ma'aser Oni in 
          Shemitah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We learned that many cities were conquered by Bnei 
               Yisrael that left Mitzrayim, but were not conquered 
               by the exiles that returned from Bavel;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The first Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael was not 
               permanent. The returning exiles left some cities 
               without Kedushah so they could be (farmed and) a 
               source of food for the poor in Shemitah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ACCEPTING CONVERTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> We accept Karduyim and Tarmudim to become 
          converts.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Contradiction (Rami bar Yechezkel's 
          Beraisa):</font></b> We do not accept Karduyim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> He taught that we do not accept 
          <i>Kartuyim</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like people say, that Kartuyim are Pesulim 
               (regarding lineage).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Rami bar Yechezkel - Beraisa):</font></b> We do not 
          accept Kartuyim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Kartuyim and Karduyim are the same (and this 
          contradicts Beraisa #1)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> No, they are different.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like people say, that Kartuyim are Pesulim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan and elders):</font></b> We do not accept converts from 
          Tarmod.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yochanan taught otherwise!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> Stains (of blood on garments) which come 
               from Rekem are Tehorim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says they are Tamei, because they are 
               converts that erred. (Rashi - they abandoned Torah. 
               Chachamim decreed that their stains are Tamei, like 
               Dam Nidah of Yisraelim.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Stains that come from Nochrim are Tehorim.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: REBBI AKIVA'S NAME REACHES THE ENDS OF THE WORLD</b></font><b>
<br></b>Yonasan ben Hurkenos said to Rebbi Akiva, 'You are the Akiva whose name goes from one end of the world to the other end (mi'Sof ha'Olam v'Ad Sofo)!'
</p><p>
The <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b> points out that the Gematriya of the words, 'mi'Sof ha'Olam (v')Ad Sofo,' is 564, the number of times that Rebbi Akiva is mentioned in the Mishnayos. (The Gematriya is actually 563, not 564. The Mitzpeh Eisan relies on the instrument of 'Im ha'Kollel,' a rule of Gematriya which allows an extra 1 to be added to the combined numerical value of a word's letters. This extra 1 corresponds to the word as a whole.) The Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Akiva 375 times, which equals the Gematriya of 'Sha'ah,' as in 'ha'Sha'ah Omedes Lo' ('the time is fortuitous for him'). Also, the Gemara in Gitin (67a) refers to Rebbi Akiva as 'Otzar Balum' (an organized storehouse of wisdom), the Gematriya of which is also 375.
</p><p>
(There seems to be an error in the transmission of this Gematriya. In our edition of the Mishnayos, the name of Rebbi Akiva appears 338 times. Perhaps the Mitzpeh Eisan means that the Gematriya of the words, 'mi'Sof' and 'Sofo' (without the words 'ha'Olam Ad') is exactly 338, and that the Gematriya of one of those two words is equal to the number of times the Halachic ruling follows Rebbi Akiva.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AGADAH: THE THREE HALACHOS REBBI DOSA HEARD FROM CHAGAI THE PROPHET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Dosa ben Hurkenos told his three distinguished guests, Rebbi Yehoshua, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, and Rebbi Akiva, three Halachos that he heard in the name of Chagai ha'Navi. Those three Halachos were: 'Tzaras ha'Bas' (the Tzarah of the daughter of the surviving brother) is prohibited to do Yibum, people in the lands of Amon and Moav must give Ma'aser Ani during the Shemitah year, and that Beis Din may accept converts from the Tarmodi'im.
</p><p>
Is there any reason why Rebbi Dosa chose to mention these three particular Halachos to his guests?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> explains why Rebbi Dosa chose to mention these three Halachos to his guests. He proposes that each Halachah was addressed to one of the guests, in the order in which they entered to visit him. Rebbi Dosa's intention was to correct mistakes in Halachah that his guests had made.
</p><p>
The Halachah that 'Tzaras ha'Bas' is prohibited was directed towards Rebbi Yehoshua. Rebbi Yehoshua was the first who entered, the head of the delegation of Tana'im who came to question the supposed ruling of Rebbi Dosa concerning 'Tzaras ha'Bas.' It was Rebbi Yehoshua (15b) who did not want to rule in the case of 'Tzaras ha'Bas,' excusing himself by saying that he did not want to put his head 'between the mountains' who argue about it. Rebbi Dosa told him that he did not have to be afraid to rule that 'Tzaras ha'Bas' is prohibited. (It could be that Rebbi Yehoshua did not want to rule openly on the issue against the opinion of Beis Shamai because of the incident recorded in Chagigah 22b.) 
</p><p>
The second Halachah Rebbi Dosa related -- that the people in the lands of Amon and Moav must separate Ma'aser Ani during the Shemitah year -- was directed towards Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah. It was Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah who discussed that Halachah in Maseches Yadayim (4:3) and said that one must separate Ma'aser Sheni but <i>not</i> Ma'aser Ani in the lands of Amon and Moav during the Shemitah year. (Perhaps during their discussion of various Halachos during this meeting, the conversation turned to this Halachah and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah expressed his opinion on the matter.)
</p><p>
The third Halachah -- that converts from the Tarmodi'im are accepted -- was directed towards Rebbi Akiva. Rebbi Akiva (49a) ruled that a child born through a union with a Chiyuv Lav (and not only a Chiyuv Kares) is a Mamzer. Consequently, according to Rebbi Akiva, a child born from a Jewish woman and a Nochri is a Mamzer, and thus Rebbi Akiva does not accept converts from the Tarmodi'im (see Tosfos 16b, DH Kasavar). Rebbi Dosa corrected him and said in the name of Chagai ha'Navi that converts from the Tarmodi'im are accepted, because the Halachah is that a union with a Chiyuv Lav does not produce a Mamzer.
</p><p>
(The Halachah follows the rulings of Rebbi Dosa in all three cases.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AGADAH: REBBI AKIVA THE SHEPHERD</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> When Yonasan ben Hurkenos successfully outwitted Rebbi Akiva, he exclaimed, 'Happy are you that you merited such a reputation, and you still have not yet reached the rank of cattle shepherds (Ro'ei Bakar)!' Rebbi Akiva responded, 'I have not reached even the level of shepherds of sheep (Ro'ei Tzon)!'
</p><p>
Why did Yonasan ben Hurkenos compare Rebbi Akiva to 'Ro'ei Bakar,' and what did Rebbi Akiva intend to say in his response?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> points out that Amos ha'Navi said about himself, 'I am a cattle shepherd' (Amos 7:14). Yonasan ben Hurkenos said to Rebbi Akiva that although Rebbi Akiva may have received a tradition from Chagai ha'Navi, a later prophet, about a certain Halachah, he did not have a tradition from an <i>earlier</i> prophet -- Amos, the 'cattle shepherd.' Perhaps the earlier prophets ruled the way Yonasan ruled. Rebbi Akiva responded, 'A tradition from Chagai is more authoritative than one from Amos. A tradition from any prophet stems directly from the 'shepherd of sheep'' -- a reference to Moshe Rabeinu (Shemos 3:1).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> explains that before Rebbi Akiva learned Torah, he worked as the shepherd of Kalba Savu'a (Kesuvos 62b). Yonasan's intention was to remind Rebbi Akiva of his ignoble beginnings. Rebbi Akiva in his humility responded that he had not even reached the rank of less reputable shepherds, such as shepherds of sheep ('Ro'ei Behemah Dakah') who are suspected of allowing their charges to graze in the fields of others (see Sanhedrin 26a, Bava Kama 79b). 
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b> relates an explanation which points out that according to the Gemara in Berachos (63a), Rebbi Akiva once declared a leap year while he was outside of Eretz Yisrael. Several Tana'im were displeased with his ruling because the establishment of leap years is the prerogative of Beis Din in Eretz Yisrael.
</p><p>
The Tana says in Pirkei d'Rebbi Elazar (chapter 8) that even if there are great Tzadikim and Talmidei Chachamim in Chutz la'Aretz, and in Eretz Yisrael there are only shepherds, the shepherds in Eretz Yisrael should establish the leap year rather than the Talmidei Chachamim outside of Eretz Yisrael. (The Gemara in Sanhedrin (18b, 26a) says that even 'Ro'ei Tzon and Ro'ei Bakar' may declare a leap year.) Yonasan ben Hurkenos reprimanded Rebbi Akiva for declaring a leap year outside of Eretz Yisrael and told him that with regard to declaring leap years, 'You are not even as authoritative as Ro'ei Bakar [in Eretz Yisrael]!'
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> The Mishnah did not specify. This implies 
               that stains of all Nochrim are Tehorim, even from 
               Tarmod!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> This teaches that we accept converts 
               from Tarmod (and may marry them. We are not 
               concerned lest they are (Mamzerim) Yisraelim.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan observed that the Mishnah holds that 
          way; he himself disagrees.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yochanan taught that the Halachah 
          follows a Stam Mishnah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Amora'im disagree with the opinion of R. 
          Yochanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason not to accept converts from 
          Tarmod?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan or the elders):</font></b> (We are concerned 
          lest they descend from) the slaves of Shlomo;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (The other of R. Yochanan and the elders):</font></b> 
          (Perhaps they descend from) girls of Yerushalayim (this 
          will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  We understand Answer #1. He holds that the child of a Bas 
          Yisrael from a Nochri or slave is a Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Answer #2, what was the problem 
          with Benos Yerushalayim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah and Chachamim):</font></b> When the 
          Nochrim entered the Heichal (at the time of the first 
          Churban), most Nochrim engaged in taking gold and silver. 
          Twelve thousand men and (or including) 6,000 archers 
          turned to Benos Yerushalayim - 'They afflicted women in 
          Tziyon, virgins in the cities of Yehudah.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>AGADIC TEACHINGS OF R. SHMUEL BAR NACHMANI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> 'I was a youth, I grew old' - 
          this verse was said by the world minister (the angel 
          Metatron).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Hash-m could not have said it, for He does not age;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> David could not have said it, for he did not live to 
               be so old!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rather, the world minister must have said it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> 'The afflicter spread his hand 
          on all its treasures' refers to Amon and Mo'av;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When Nochrim entered the Heichal, all others engaged 
               in taking gold and silver, and they turned to the 
               Sefer Torah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They said 'the Torah forbids (converts from) Amon 
               and Mo'av to marry into the congregation of Hashem' 
               - it will be burned!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> 'Hash-m commanded that Yakov's enemies 
               surround him' - such as Humniya (Yevanim), who 
               harass Yisraelim in Fum Nahara.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'SAFEK' 'YISRAELIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If a Nochri was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael, we 
          are concerned for this. Perhaps he is (a Yisrael) from 
          the 10 tribes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should assume that he is from the majority 
          of people, who are not from the 10 Shevatim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We are concerned in places where they (the 10 
          Shevatim) settled. (Rashi - there they are 'fixed', so it 
          is considered an even Safek. Tosfos - there, they are the 
          majority.)
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'SAFEK' 'YISRAELIM' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba bar Kahana):</font></b> 'And he (Sancheriv) settled them in 
          Chalach, Chabor... and the cities of Madai' - these are 
          (now called) Chalazon, Chadyev, Ginzek, Chamdan and its 
          surrounding villages;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Others say (that Madai is) Nihar, and its 
               surrounding villages.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Which are its surrounding villages?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> They are Chrach, Moshchi, Chidki and 
          Dumkiya.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The lineage of all these places is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> Your son that 
          comes from a Bas Yisrael is called your son. Your son 
          that comes from a Nochris is not called your son, rather 
          her son (a Nochri. Therefore, we are not concerned for 
          Kidushin of people from these places.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should be concerned for descendants of 
          females of the 10 Shevatim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ravina):</font></b> The son of your daughter from a Nochri is 
               called your son (a Yisrael)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We have a tradition that girls of that generation 
          (when the 10 Shevatim were exiled) became sterile.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> Chachamim at the 
          time immediately declared that they are Nochrim - 'They 
          betrayed Hash-m, for they fathered foreign children.' 
          (Keren Orah - Chachamim can enact to uproot their 
          Kidushin, but they cannot make them Nochrim in every 
          respect. Alternatively, perhaps Nevi'im, with Ru'ach 
          ha'Kodesh, declared that they are Nochrim in every 
          respect.) (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Yisrael will make a Yom Tov when Tarmod is 
          destroyed (for Yisraelim intermarry with Mamzerim from 
          there).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It already was destroyed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, Tamod was destroyed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Tarmod and Tamod are the same. When one side 
          was destroyed, the other side was settled, and 
          vice-versa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> Rav Hamnuna is a great Chacham. It is a shame that 
          he is from Herpanya (a place of poor lineage).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  Rav Hamnuna was embarrassed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ula:</font></b> To where do you pay your head tax?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Hamnuna:</font></b> I pay to Fum Nahara.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ula:</font></b> If so, you are considered to be from there 
               (they have good lineage).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is Herpanya?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Zeira):</font></b> It is the HaR (mountain) to which 
          everyone (of bad lineage, who cannot marry elsewhere,) is 
          PoNeh (turns).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> Anyone who doesn't know his family 
          and Shevet goes there.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> It is deeper (more irreparable) than Gehenom:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'From the pit (Gehinom) I will redeem them, from 
               death' - but there is no remedy for Pesulim of 
               Herpanya.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b></b>  The Pesulim of Herpanya came from the Pesulim of Meshan 
          (a nearby city). The Pesulim of Meshan came from the 
          Pesulim of Tarmod. The Pesulim of Tarmod came from the 
          slaves of Shlomo.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like people say, both big and small measures 
               (Pesulim) descend to She'ol (Rashi - Gehenom; Tosfos 
               - Bavel). From She'ol they descend to Tarmod, then 
               to Meshan, then to Herpanya.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***<b>PEREK KEITZAD</b>***
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ESHES' 'ACHIV' 'SHE'LO' 'HAYAH' 'B'OLAMO'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> What is the case of Eshes Achiv 
          she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo (the widow of a brother who died 
          before the Yavam was born)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Reuven and Shimon are brothers. After Reuven 
          died, Levi (another brother) was born. Then, Shimon did 
          Yibum with Chanah (Reuven's widow), and Shimon died.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The first wife is exempt because her husband was not 
          alive in the life of the Yavam; the second wife (of 
          Shimon, Leah,) is exempt because she is Chanah's Tzarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If Shimon merely gave a Ma'amar to Chanah, Leah does 
          Chalitzah but not Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Nachman):</font></b> In some texts of the Mishnah, 
          Chanah is called 'the first' wife. In other texts she is 
          called 'the second'. Both of these are proper texts:
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'MEYUCHADIN B'NACHALAH' -- BROTHERS WHO SHARE AN INHERITANCE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the source for the Halachah that Yibum is practiced only by a brother who shares the same father as the deceased. The Gemara cites two sources. The first is the verse of Yibum which says, 'When brothers dwell <i>together</i> (Yachdav)' (Devarim 25:5), which teaches that they must be 'Meyuchadin b'Nachalah' -- 'together in the inheritance.' The second source is the the verse of Yibum which says, 'When <i>brothers</i> (Achim) dwell together' (ibid.), from which a Gezeirah Shavah to the word 'Achim' mentioned with regard to the sons of Yakov (Bereishis 42:13) is derived: just as the sons of Yakov had the same father but different mothers, so, too, the obligation of Yibum applies only to brothers who have the same father.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that 'Meyuchadin b'Nachalah' means that the brothers must be able to inherit each other if the other dies.
</p><p>
However, at the end of the Sugya the Gemara says that had the Torah taught only the word 'Achim,' one would have thought that the obligation of Yibum applies even to an uncle and a nephew (for example, when the uncle dies childless, the nephew is obligated to do Yibum with his uncle's wife), because they, too, are referred to as 'Achim,' as Avraham told Lot, '... for we are brothers (Achim)' (Bereishis 13:8). Hence, the verse adds the word 'Yachdav' to teach that only <i>actual</i> brothers are obligated in Yibum. Only brothers are 'Meyuchadin b'Nachalah,' and not an uncle and a nephew.
</p><p>
Rashi there explains that 'Meyuchadin b'Nachalah' means that they share the inheritance when their father dies. This definition of 'Meyuchadin b'Nachalah' clearly differs from the definition which Rashi gives earlier. Why does Rashi change his explanation? (<b>RASHBA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> answers that 'Meyuchadin b'Nachalah' means that they share an inheritance in <i>all</i> ways; they divide an inheritance that they receive from someone else, and they are able to inherit each other.
</p><p>
The Riva explains that both meanings of the verse are implicit in the Sugya; Rashi gives the two different explanations because he follows the train of thought of the Gemara. When the Gemara first mentions that the brothers must be 'Meyuchadin b'Nachalah' in order to do Yibum, its intention is to exclude brothers from the same mother (and from different fathers). Such brothers <i>do</i> share an inheritance if their mother leaves behind possessions when she dies. However, they do not inherit each other's property, because when one brother dies (with no children) his property goes to his father and then to his father's heirs. Thus, 'Meyuchadin b'Nachalah' means that they must be able to inherit <i>each other</i>, and it excludes brothers who share the same mother and not the same father.
</p><p>
In contrast, in the case of an uncle and a nephew (such as Avraham and Lot), they <i>could</i> inherit each other if they have no other close relatives, and thus they qualify for the first definition of 'Meyuchadin b'Nachalah.' The inheritance could go from the uncle to the nephew (via the nephew's father, the uncle's brother), as well as from the nephew to the uncle.
</p><p>
However, an uncle and a nephew share no inheritance from any single person. (If the uncle's father dies, the uncle splits the inheritance with his brother. Even if that brother is dead and the inheritance goes to the nephew, he is not actually splitting it with his uncle, but rather his <i>father</i> splits it with his uncle and then he inherits it from his father.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AVRAHAM AND LOT WERE 'ACHIM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the sources for the law that Yibum is practiced only between brothers who share the same father. One of the sources is the verse, 'When <i>brothers</i> (Achim) dwell together' (Devarim 25:5), from which a Gezeirah Shavah to the word 'Achim' mentioned with regard to the sons of Yakov (Bereishis 42:13) is derived: just as the sons of Yakov had the same father but different mothers, so, too, the obligation of Yibum applies only to brothers who have the same father.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that the verse also says 'Achim' with regard to Avraham and Lot: '... for we are brothers (Achim)' (Bereishis 13:8). Perhaps the obligation of Yibum applies even to an uncle and a nephew (for example, when the uncle dies childless, the nephew is obligated to do Yibum with his uncle's wife), because they, too, are referred to as 'Achim.' The Gemara answers that the Gezeirah Shavah refers only to the sons of Yakov; the word 'Achim' there is Mufneh ('open' and available to be used for a Derashah, and it is not used for any other teaching), while the word 'Achim' in the verse of Avraham and Lot is not Mufneh.
</p><p>
The Gemara at the end of the Sugya concludes that both the word 'Achim' and the word 'Yachdav' (see previous Insight) in the verse of Yibum are necessary to teach that Yibum applies only to brothers from the same father; the word 'Achim' alone does not suffice. The Gemara says that had the Torah not taught 'Yachdav,' one would have applied the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Achim' from Avraham and Lot, because the word 'Achim' there is Mufneh since it should have said 'Re'im' instead of 'Achim.'
</p><p>
What does the Gemara mean? The Gemara just said that the word 'Achim' in the verse of Lot is <i>not</i> Mufneh. Why does the Gemara now say that it <i>is</i> Mufneh?
</p><p>
Moreover, if 'Achim' in the verse of Lot indeed is Mufneh as the Gemara now says, the Gemara should explain what <i>is</i> derived from that word, since 'Yachdav' and 'Achim' in the verse of the sons of Yakov together teach that the obligation of Yibum applies only to brothers and not to an uncle and a nephew. The word 'Achim' in the verse of Lot remains Mufneh; what law does it teach? (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> answers that, in truth, the word 'Achim' in the verse of Lot is not Mufneh, as the Gemara originally asserts. The verse could not have used the word 'Re'im' because Avraham's intention was to express that he and Lot were more than just friends to each other; they were as close as brothers. (The Maharsha explains that the verse uses the word 'Achim' instead of 'Re'im' to teach that one's grandchildren are considered like his children.) When the Gemara says that without the word 'Yachdav' one would have thought that 'Achim' of Lot is Mufneh, it means that one would have mistakenly thought that it is Mufneh and that its purpose is to teach a Halachah in the laws of Yibum. 'Yachdav' teaches that 'Achim' of Lot is not Mufneh and teaches nothing about Yibum. 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> answer that even when the Gemara says that 'Achim' in the verse of Lot is Mufneh, it does not mean that it is actually Mufneh. The Gemara knows that the word 'Achim' is needed to teach that Avraham felt as close as a brother to Lot. Rather, when the Gemara says that the word is Mufneh it means that when the Torah says 'Achim' in the verse of Yibum, its intention is to teach that these brothers should not be compared to any specific 'Achim' mentioned elsewhere in the verses, but rather that Yibum applies to <i>any</i> relatives to whom the verse refers with the word 'Achim.' If the word 'Achim' appears in reference to an uncle and nephew, then it teaches that the word 'Achim' in the verse of Yibum also includes that relationship (of uncle and nephew) for Yibum (it is a 'Giluy Milsa').
</p><p>
This is what the Gemara means when it says that the verse of Lot should have said 'Re'im,' which is the intention of the verse. The fact that it instead says 'Achim' teaches that the word 'Achim' in the verse of Yibum describes a relationship of uncle and nephew as well. 'Yachdav' therefore teaches that the word 'Achim' in the verse of Yibum refers only to a specific type of Achim -- actual brothers who share the same father.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She can be called first because she was the first to 
               fall to Yibum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> She can be called second because she was the second 
               to marry (Shimon).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Surely, the Mishnah applies even if 
               Shimon did Yibum before marrying Leah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> Rather, Chanah can be called the second 
               because this was her second marriage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Where does the Torah discuss Eshes Achiv she'Lo 
          Hayah b'Olamo?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'Ki Yeshvu Achim Yachdav' - they 
          dwelled together in the world;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Yachdav' - they must be able to inherit each other. 
               This excludes maternal brothers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> We learn that they must be paternal brothers 
          from a Gezeirah Shavah 'Achvah-Achvah' from Yakov's sons;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Yakov's sons were paternal, but not maternal 
               brothers. Yibum depends on this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why don't we learn from 'Achvah' written 
          regarding Arayos?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn 'Achim' from 'Achim', and not from the 
          word 'Achecha' written regarding Arayos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We may learn from different words. Tana d'Vei 
          R. Yishmael learns a Gezeirah Shavah between 'Returns' 
          and 'comes'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is only when there are not more similar 
          words. When there are more similar words, we learn from 
          them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why don't we learn from 'Achim' written 
          regarding Lot?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is better to learn from Bnei Yakov since it is 
          extra, to be expounded;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It could have said 'We are 12, the sons of one man.' 
               'Achim' is extra for the Gezeirah Shavah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  The Torah needed to write 'Achim', and also 'Yachdav'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  Had it written only 'Achim', one would think to learn 
          from Lot.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is reasonable, for 'Achim' written regarding 
               Lot is extra. It should have said 'we are friends.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Therefore, it says 'Yachdav', to teach that they 
               must inherit together.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  Had it written only 'Yachdav', one might have thought 
          that they must have the same mother and father.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why would one think so? Yibum depends on 
          inheritance, which is from the father!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since Yibum is a Chidush, in which Ervah is 
          permitted, one might have thought that they must be 
          brothers even from the mother.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ZIKAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna citing Rav):</font></b> If a Yevamah died, her Yavam may 
          marry her mother.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  He holds that Ein Zikah (a Yevamah is not considered to 
          be Mekudeshes to the Yavam. If he held that Yesh Zikah, 
          her mother would be forbidden to him.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> He should have said that the Halachah follows 
          the opinion (Chachamim of R. Yehudah ben Beseira, 41a) 
          that Ein Zikah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Had he said so, one might have thought that this 
          is only when there is more than one Yavam (since she can 
          do Yibum with any brother, it is unreasonable to say that 
          she is Mekudeshes to one), but when there is only one 
          Yavam, Yesh Zikah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> He should have said that the Halachah follows 
          the opinion that Ein Zikah, even when there is one Yavam!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If so, one might have thought that this is true 
          even when she is alive;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, he teaches that the Yavam may marry her 
               mother only after she dies.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> When she is alive it is forbidden, for this uproots 
               the Mitzvah of Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Yevamah died, the Yavam may 
          marry her sister.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He may marry her sister, but not her 
               mother  (just like death of one's wife permits her 
               sister, but not her mother)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, he may marry even her mother;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Reisha of that Mishnah permits his wife's sister 
               after his wife dies, but not her mother, for a 
               mother-in-law is forbidden mid'Oraisa even after the 
               wife died;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Therefore, the Seifa also discusses her sister.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If a Yevamah died, her Yavam may not marry 
          her mother.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  He holds that Yesh Zikah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> He should have said that the Halachah follows 
          the opinion that says Yesh Zikah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> If so, one might have thought that is only 
          when there is only one Yavam, but when there is more than 
          one Yavam, Ein Zikah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> They argue about when there is more than one 
          Yavam!
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ZIKAH' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, if so, one might have thought that is 
          only when she is alive, but that Zikah ends after she 
          dies;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Therefore, he taught that Zikah does not vanish.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Rav Yehudah - Mishnah):</font></b> If a Yevamah died, 
          the Yavam may marry her sister.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Her sister is permitted, but not her mother!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, he may even marry her mother. Since the 
          Reisha permits Achos Ishto after the wife dies, the Seifa 
          also discusses her sister.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Huna bar Chiya - Mishnah):</font></b> If he gave her a 
          Ma'amar and died, the second widow does Chalitzah but not 
          Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> Had he not given a Ma'amar, the second 
               widow could do even Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Yesh Zikah, she should be like the Tzarah of 
               Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo (which is 
               forbidden)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> No, even if no Ma'amar was given, she may 
          not do Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah discusses a Ma'amar to oppose Beis 
               Shamai, who say that a Ma'amar fully acquires a 
               Yevamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> If a man died without 
          children, and before his brother Shimon was able to give 
          a Ma'amar to the Yevamah, another brother was born, and 
          then Shimon died. The first widow is exempt, for she is 
          Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo. The second widow does 
          Chalitzah or Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Yesh Zikah, through Zikah she is Tzaras Eshes 
               Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo (and should be 
               forbidden)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. Meir, who holds that Ein 
          Zikah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Meir does not hold that Ein Zikah! (The 
          following Stam Mishnah is assumed to be like R. Meir.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If two of four brothers were married to 
               sisters, and these two died, the sisters do 
               Chalitzah but not Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If R. Meir holds that Ein Zikah, since they fall 
               from different brothers, it should be permitted for 
               each surviving brother to do Yibum with one sister!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Really, he holds that Ein Zikah. However, it is 
          forbidden to uproot the Mitzvah of Yibum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If we wait for one to do Yibum, perhaps the other 
               will die (and the other widow will be exempt without 
               Yibum or Chalitzah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he holds that Ein Zikah, he should allow the 
          Mitzvah to be uprooted, just like R. Gamliel!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Gamliel):</font></b> (If Rachel (a minor) was 
               married mid'Rabanan to Reuven, and her sister fell 
               to him to Yibum,) if Rachel did Mi'un, fine (Leah 
               may do Yibum). If not, Leah waits (Tosfos - Rachel 
               waits to have Bi'ah with Reuven) until Rachel 
               becomes an adult, and the marriage becomes 
               mid'Oraisa (after they have Bi'ah), and Leah is 
               exempt from Yibum or Chalitzah for she is Reuven's 
               Achos Ishto.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This is no question. Perhaps R. Meir disagrees 
          with R. Gamliel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is unreasonable that R. Meir is concerned 
          <i>perhaps</i> the Mitzvah will be uprooted, and R. Gamliel is 
          not concerned even when it is certainly uprooted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> This is not so! Perhaps one Tana is not 
          concerned even when the Mitzvah is definitely uprooted, 
          but the other is concerned even when it may be uprooted!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>RAV YEHUDAH'S SOURCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> Rav Yehudah learned (that Yesh Zikah) from 
          Shmuel.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) RETROACTIVE REMOVAL OF 'ZIKAH'</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara records a dispute with regard to whether 'Yesh Zikah' or 'Ein Zikah' -- is the bond of Zikah between the Yevamah and the Yavam comparable to the bond of marriage? Rav Huna in the name of Rav maintains 'Ein Zikah,' and Rav Yehudah maintains 'Yesh Zikah.'
</p><p>
The Gemara points out that Rav Yehudah does not explicitly state 'Yesh Zikah.' Rather, his opinion is inferred from another Halachic ruling. Rav Yehudah rules that if a Yevamah dies before she does Yibum, the Yavam is forbidden to marry her mother. The reasoning behind this ruling is 'Yesh Zikah' -- a bond of Zikah linked the Yavam to the Yevamah, and just as one may not marry the mother of his wife, he may not marry the mother of his Yevamah. The Gemara explains that the reason why Rav Yehudah did not explicitly say 'Yesh Zikah' is that had he said 'Yesh Zikah' one might have assumed that there is Zikah only when both the Yevamah and Yavam are alive (and only when the Yevamah is alive is the Yavam forbidden to marry her mother), but after the Yevamah dies there is no Zikah and the Yavam may marry her mother. One might have thought that after the Yevamah's death, any bond of Zikah is removed <i>retroactively</i>, since the Yavam no longer can do Yibum or Chalitzah with her. Rav Yehudah teaches that the bond of Zikah remains and is not removed at all (and certainly not retroactively).
</p><p>
The Acharonim point out that although the Gemara rejects the possibility that the Zikah is uprooted retroactively, it is not such a remote possibility (as is implied by Tosfos 17b, DH Aval). The Gemara discusses certain cases in which the Zikah is uprooted retroactively, while in other cases it seems to be a subject of debate among the Amora'im. (See <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> in Kuntrus Zikah, and <b>YASHRESH YAKOV</b>.)
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (17b, DH v'Leima) explains that if a man dies childless and his wife falls to his two brothers for Yibum, and one of the brothers betroths (with Kidushin) the sister of the Yevamah (thereby rendering the Yevamah an Ervah of 'Achos Ishto' to him), Beis Din tells that brother to delay doing Nisu'in with the sister because she is 'Achos Zekukaso,' the sister of the woman who has a bond of Zikah with him and is thus prohibited to him mid'Rabanan. Rather, he should wait until the other brother does Yibum (or Chalitzah), at which time 'the Zikah is removed' (as Rashi writes) and the first brother may fully marry the Yevamah's sister. The Gemara (18b) explains that this ruling follows the opinion of Rav Yehudah that 'Yesh Zikah,' and that is why the sister of the Yevamah ('Achos Zekukaso') is prohibited to the brother.
</p><p>
This explanation is problematic. The Gemara teaches that even after the Yevamah dies, the Yavam remains forbidden to her mother because the Zikah does not fall away. Likewise, in the case which Rashi discusses, even after the other brother does Yibum (or Chalitzah), the first brother should remain prohibited to the sister of the Yevamah, just as one is prohibited to the sister of a woman he divorced.
</p><p>
It is clear that doing Yibum removes the Zikah retroactively from the other brothers (and from the Tzaros as well). When the Gemara earlier (10b) says that according to Rebbi Yochanan, the brother who does Yibum (or Chalitzah) acts as the Shali'ach on behalf of all the brothers, that does not mean that it is considered as though the other brothers actually perform the Yibum. Rather, the brother who does Yibum does it <i>for himself</i>, but his act removes the Zikah from the other brothers -- and from the Tzaros of the Yevamah -- even retroactively.
</p><p>
When the Gemara here says that Zikah is not removed retroactively, it means that only Yibum or Chalitzah removes the Zikah retroactively from the other brothers and the other Tzaros, but not <i>death</i>. The death of the Yevamah or the Yavam cannot remove the Zikah retroactively.
</p><p>
(b) According to the <b>RASHBA</b>, all of the questions which the Gemara (18a) asks -- when it challenges the view of Rav Yehudah that a brother is forbidden to marry the mother of a Yevamah after the Yevamah dies -- are not intended to prove that Rav Yehudah is incorrect and that 'Ein Zikah.' Rather, the Gemara agrees that 'Yesh Zikah,' but it seeks to prove that Zikah <i>is</i> retroactively removed when the Yavam or Yevamah dies.
</p><p>
If the Zikah is removed retroactively, then the Mishnah earlier (17a) is easy to understand. The Gemara questions the opinion that 'Yesh Zikah' from the end of the Mishnah. The Mishnah implies that if Levi is born before Shimon does Yibum, and Shimon dies without doing Yibum, Levi must do Yibum or Chalitzah with Shimon's wife.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks, why is Shimon's wife not considered a 'Tzaras Ervah b'Zikah' (the Tzarah of a woman who is an Ervah through Zikah), since the wife of Reuven who was forbidden to Levi (because of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo') was Zekukah to Shimon? The Gemara attempts to prove with this question that the Zikah is removed retroactively when Shimon dies. If the Zikah was removed retroactively, then Shimon's wife was <i>not</i> a 'Tzaras Ervah b'Zikah' since there was no Zikah, as it was removed retroactively when Shimon died.
</p><p>
Similarly, the Gemara asks a contradiction in the opinion of Rebbi Meir. In one case, Rebbi Meir says that if Levi was born before Shimon died and then Shimon died without doing Yibum with Reuven's wife, Levi is allowed to do Yibum with Shimon's wife. This means that Shimon's wife is not considered a 'Tzaras Ervah b'Zikah' to Levi; the Zikah (of Reuven's wife to Shimon) does not make her a Tzarah of Shimon's wife. In another case, however, Rebbi Meir says that when two sisters fall to Yibum from two different brothers, the brothers must do Chalitzah and are not allowed to do Yibum. This ruling implies that each woman is considered 'Achos Zekukaso' and is prohibited to each brother, and that is why neither one may do Yibum.
</p><p>
The Rashba explains that here, too, the Gemara seeks to prove that Zikah is retroactively removed when the Yavam dies. That is why in the first case, when the Yavam (Shimon) died, there was no Zikah and Shimon's wife was not a 'Tzaras Ervah' through Zikah. In contrast, in the second case none of the Yevamim died, and since Chalitzah or Yibum will be done the Zikah remains in force and the two sisters are prohibited to the brothers because of 'Achos Zekukaso' and, therefore, they must do Chalitzah.
</p><p>
(c) Although the Gemara answers its questions (18a) and rejects the proofs that Zikah is removed retroactively, the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> (ibid.) demonstrates at length that the Yerushalmi in numerous places maintains that the initial suggestion of the Gemara here -- that Zikah is removed retroactively even by the death of the Yevamah or Yavam -- is true. The Yerushalmi maintains contrary to the Bavli that Zikah <i>is</i> removed retroactively after the death of the Yavam or Yevamah.
</p><p>
<b>RAV MEIR ARIK</b> (in <b>TAL TORAH</b>, Yerushalmi Yevamos 1:1, 3b) offers a beautiful explanation for the Yerushalmi in Kidushin (3:5, 31b) based on the Yerushalmi here. The Mishnah there (see Kidushin 62a, Yevamos 92b) states that if a man says to a married woman, 'I hereby betroth you to me from after your <i>husband dies</i>' or 'from after your <i>Yavam does Chalitzah</i> with you,' the Kidushin does not take effect; a man cannot make Kidushin take effect at a future time with a 'Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam.' The woman cannot be betrothed now because she is presently married, or Zekukah, to another man.
</p><p>
The Gemara in the Yerushalmi explains that the Mishnah mentions specifically that the man says to the woman, 'after your Yavam does Chalitzah with you,' and <i>not</i>, 'after your Yavam dies,' because in the latter case the Kidushin <i>would</i> take effect after the Yavam dies (since it was possible for the Kidushin to take effect even <i>before</i> he dies).
</p><p>
What is the difference between after the Yavam does Chalitzah and after the Yavam dies? In both cases, the woman at the time of the Kidushin is a 'Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam' and Kidushin cannot take effect with her (as the Bavli indeed says in both cases).
</p><p>
The answer is that the Yerushalmi maintains that the Zikah is removed retroactively when the Yavam dies. When the Yavam dies and the Zikah falls away retroactively, it becomes known that the Yevamah was able to marry someone else from the time that her original husband died, even though she did not know it at the time. Consequently, she was not a 'Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam' and Kidushin was able to take effect. In contrast, when the Yavam performs Chalitzah the Zikah is not removed retroactively, and thus Kidushin cannot take effect until after the Chalitzah. (This approach also demonstrates that the Zikah is removed retroactively not only with regard to the bond between the Yevamah and the Yavam, but it is removed even with regard to the Yevamah's prohibition to marry someone else.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Yehudah ben Beseirah):</font></b> If a Yavam was 
               Mekadesh the sister of his Yevamah, we tell him not 
               to marry her until his brother does Yibum or 
               Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah ben 
               Beseirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Even if Rav Yehudah learned this 
          from Rav (his other Rebbi), it would not be difficult 
          (even though Rav Huna said that Rav holds that Ein 
          Zikah). We could say that Amora'im disagree about Rav's 
          opinion!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Since Shmuel explicitly said that Yesh 
          Zikah, it is better to say that Rav Yehudah received this 
          from Shmuel, rather than to say that Amora'im argue about 
          Rav's opinion.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Zvid):</font></b> Rav Yehudah explicitly said in the name of 
          Shmuel that after the Yevamah dies, the Yavam may not 
          marry her mother.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  This is consistent with Shmuel's ruling that the Halachah 
          follows R. Yehudah ben Beseirah. It was necessary to say 
          both of these:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had he taught only that Yesh Zikah, one might have 
               thought that only when there is only one brother. He 
               ruled like R. Yehudah to teach that Yesh Zikah even 
               when there are more brothers;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Had he taught only that the Halachah follows R. 
               Yehudah, one might have thought that this is only 
               while the Yevamah is alive, but after she dies the 
               Zikah vanishes (and the Yavam may marry her mother). 
               Therefore he taught that Zikah does not go away by 
               itself.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'>3)' ESHES ACHIV SHE'LO HAYAH B'OLAMO
'(a)	(Mishnah):</font></b> Reuven died, and Shimon did Yibum with Chanah. 
     Levi (another brother) was born, and Shimon died. Chanah is 
     exempt, for she is Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo. Leah 
     (Shimon's other wife) is exempt, because she is Chanah's 
     Tzarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If Shimon gave a Ma'amar and died, Leah does Chalitzah 
          but not Yibum;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon says, Levi may do Yibum or Chalitzah with 
          either woman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Oshaya):</font></b> R. Shimon argues even in the 
          previous Mishnah (when Levi was born before Yibum was 
          done).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  He learns this from the Reisha (17a);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Reisha is not needed to teach about Chachamim. 
               They forbid even when Levi was born after Yibum and 
               entered the world when Chanah was 'permitted' (to do 
               Yibum with him if she will be widowed), all the more 
               so if he was born before Yibum!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rather, it teaches that R. Shimon argues even in 
               such a case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah teaches the extremity of Chachamim (they 
          forbid even when Levi was born after Yibum).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Really, R. Shimon should explicitly argue in the Reisha. 
          He waited until Chachamim finished their laws before 
          giving his opinion.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Shimon, when is Eshes Achiv 
          she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> This is when a man dies without brothers, and 
          then a brother is born.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> This is when there were two brothers, one 
          died, a third brother was born and the surviving brother 
          did not do Yibum or die. (But if he did, it is as if she 
          falls from the latter brother and R. Shimon permits.).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We understand why R. Shimon permits when Levi 
          was born after Yibum. When he entered the world, Chanah 
          was permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But when he was born before Yibum, why may he do 
               Yibum?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Shimon holds that Yesh Zikah, so it is as if 
          Shimon did Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> R. Shimon is unsure whether or not 
          Zikah with a Ma'amar is like having done Yibum. Does he 
          have a doubt about Zikah alone?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If three brothers were married to three 
               unrelated women and one man died, and a brother gave 
               a Ma'amar and died, the widows do Chalitzah but not 
               Yibum.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  'And <i>one</i> of them died' - Yibum applies when 
                    there is Zikah from one Yavam, not from two;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, the remaining brother may do Yibum 
               or Chalitzah with whichever woman he wants;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> He cannot do Yibum with both. Perhaps Yesh Zikah, 
               and it is as if both Yevamos fell from one brother.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> He cannot do Yibum with one, and exempt the other. 
               Perhaps Zikah is not like Yibum, and the two Yevamos 
               fell from different brothers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> This shows that R. Shimon is in doubt whether or not 
               Zikah is like Yibum.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ESHES' 'ACHIV' 'SHE'LO' 'HAYAH' 'B'OLAMO' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps mid'Oraisa he can do Yibum with one 
          and exempt the other. Mid'Rabanan this is forbidden, lest 
          people say that the same applies to Yevamos that fall 
          from different brothers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> R. Shimon's Halachah is because of the 
          Ma'amar!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> If a Ma'amar is like Yibum, 
               he does Yibum with the widow of the second brother. 
               If Ma'amar is not like Yibum, he does Yibum with the 
               widow of the first brother!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Don't you distinguish between Zikah 
          when there is one Yavam, and when there are two?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps R. Shimon says that Zikah is like Yibum only 
               when there is only one Yavam!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Shimon does not make such a distinction!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> The general rule is, if the 
               brother was born before the Yibum, she does neither 
               Chalitzah nor Yibum. If he was born after the Yibum, 
               she does Chalitzah or Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> There is one brother, and she is exempt 
               (when the Yavam was born before the Yibum)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No there are two brothers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> If there was only one brother, she would do 
          Chalitzah or Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does R. Shimon teach that Yibum is 
          permitted when the Yavam was born after the Yibum?  He 
          should permit even when he was born before, when he is 
          the only brother!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The entire Beraisa discusses two Yavamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> If so, this is not a general rule!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2 (Rav Oshaya - Mishnah):</font></b> If two of three 
          brothers were married to sisters, or a woman and her 
          daughter, or a woman and her daughter's daughter, or a 
          woman and her son's daughter (and these two brothers 
          died), the widows do Chalitzah, not Yibum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon exempts.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If R. Shimon holds that Zikah is like Yibum, he may 
               do Yibum with one and exempt the other!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Amram):</font></b> True! R. Shimon exempts only the 
          second.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> Both are exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> The second widow in each pair is 
          exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  Rava misunderstood the Beraisa of four pairs.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mistake #1:</font></b> Each brother had only one wife (not 
               four). The two wives were related in one of the four 
               ways.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mistake #2:</font></b> According to Rava, it should have said 
               that R. Shimon exempts all four.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mistake #3:</font></b> A Beraisa teaches that R. Shimon exempts 
               them because of 'Do not take to be Tzaros' - when 
               (sisters) are Tzaros to each other (through Zikah), 
               you cannot marry either.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If they fell to Yibum at different 
          times, one could do Yibum with one and exempt the other;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  The case is, they fell to Yibum simultaneously.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon holds like R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that it 
          is possible for two events (e.g. deaths) to occur at the 
          exact same time.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. SHIMON SOMETIMES ADMITS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> R. Shimon argues only when the brother is 
          born after Yibum. R. Shimon agrees that if he was born 
          before, she is exempt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Both Mishnayos are needed to teach the opinion of 
               Chachamim. The second Mishnah teaches more than the 
               first.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A Beraisa supports Rav Papa and refutes Rav Oshaya.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Reuven died, leaving a brother Shimon. Levi 
          (another brother) was born before Shimon had a chance to 
          give a Ma'amar, then Shimon died;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first widow (Reuven's) is exempt due to Eshes 
               Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo. The second (Shimon's 
               other wife) does Chalitzah or Yibum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Shimon gave a Ma'amar before or after Levi was 
               born and then Shimon died, the first widow is exempt 
               due to Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo. The second 
               does Chalitzah, not Yibum;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) RAV OSHIYA'S EXPLANATION OF REBBI SHIMON'S OPINION </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Oshiya states (18b) that Rebbi Shimon permits Yibum in a case of 'Nolad v'Achar Kach Yibem': the first brother (Reuven) dies childless, and the second brother (Shimon) has not yet performed Yibum when a third brother (Levi) is born. When Shimon does Yibum with Reuven's wife and then dies childless, Rebbi Shimon permits Levi to do Yibum with Reuven's wife. Rebbi Shimon maintains 'Yesh Zikah' -- the bond of Zikah is comparable to the bond of marriage when it bonds the Yevamah to the Yavam. Since the Yevamah was considered 'bonded' to Shimon with a marriage-like bond at the time she fell to Yibum, the birth of Levi at that time is not considered a case of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.'
</p><p>
The Gemara challenges Rav Oshiya's assertion that Rebbi Shimon maintains 'Yesh Zikah.' The Mishnah later (31b) presents a case of three brothers who were married to three unrelated women. Reuven died, and Shimon did 'Ma'amar' with Reuven's wife, and then he died. Rebbi Shimon states that the remaining brother may do Yibum with one widow (either the widow of Reuven or the widow of Shimon) and do Chalitzah with the other. The reason why, according to Rebbi Shimon, the brother may not do Yibum with both of them, or do Yibum with only one of them and exempt the other entirely, is that Rebbi Shimon maintains '<i>Ein</i> Zikah' and he is in doubt whether 'Ma'amar' is considered powerful enough to give the Yevamah the status of Shimon's full-fledged wife.
</p><p>
Abaye answers this question by saying that Rebbi Shimon distinguishes between a case of a woman who falls to Yibum to <i>two</i> brothers and a case of a woman who falls to Yibum to only <i>one</i> brother. There <i>is</i> Zikah when she falls to only one brother, but there cannot be Zikah when she falls to two brothers (just as there cannot be a bond of marriage between one woman and two men).
</p><p>
The Gemara challenges Abaye's distinction between Zikah to two brothers and Zikah to one brother. A Beraisa quotes Rebbi Shimon as saying that if Levi is born before Shimon does Yibum, it is a case of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo' and Levi is exempt from Yibum and Chalitzah. The Gemara says that according to the simple reading of the Beraisa, the Beraisa refers to a case in which there was only one brother other than Levi, and yet Levi still is considered 'Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo' because there was no Zikah between Shimon and the Yevamah! This proves that even when there is only one brother, Rebbi Shimon maintains 'Ein Zikah.'
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the Beraisa actually refers to a case in which there were <i>two</i> other brothers. Hence, Rebbi Shimon says that there is no Zikah, and that is why Levi is considered 'Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.'
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara ask this question from the Beraisa now, in response to Abaye's statement that Rebbi Shimon distinguishes between a case of one surviving brother and two surviving brothers with regard to Zikah? The Gemara should cite this Beraisa at the beginning of the Sugya as a direct challenge to the view of Rav Oshiya! The Beraisa says clearly that Rebbi Shimon agrees -- in a case in which Levi was born before Shimon did Yibum -- that 'Ein Zikah' and Levi is prohibited to the Yevamah because of 'Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.' Before Abaye says that Rebbi Shimon distinguishes between one brother and two brothers, the Gemara should present this Beraisa as an even greater challenge to Rav Oshiya's statement.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RAMBAN</b> writes that the introductory words which precede the Gemara's question from the Beraisa, 'u'Mi Sha'ani Lei l'Rebbi Shimon' -- 'Does Rebbi Shimon really distinguish [between one brother and two brothers]?' are not actually the basis for its question from the Beraisa. Although these introductory words imply that the Gemara's question is addressed to Abaye, the Gemara actually intends to ask from the Beraisa directly on Rav Oshiya's explanation of Rebbi Shimon. (The Gemara means to say, 'Will differentiating between one and two Yevamim really answer all of the questions on Rav Oshiya?') The question of the Gemara is how can Rav Oshiya say that Rebbi Shimon maintains 'Yesh Zikah' when the Beraisa clearly shows that Rebbi Shimon maintains 'Ein Zikah.'
</p><p>
According to the Ramban's explanation, why does the Gemara not challenge Rav Oshiya's statement from this Beraisa <i>first</i>? After all, this Beraisa is the clearest source that Rebbi Shimon maintains 'Ein Zikah.' The <b>RASHBA</b> offers several answers:
</p><p>
(a) The reason why this Beraisa is presented as the second question on Rav Oshiya and not the first is that the first question the Gemara asks is from a Mishnah (31b). The general rule is that the Gemara prefers to ask a question from a Mishnah, even when the question is based only on an inference, than to ask a question from a Beraisa, even though the Beraisa is more explicit.
</p><p>
(b) The Rashba suggests further that the first question is stronger because it shows that Rebbi Shimon is in doubt whether or not there is Zikah even after 'Ma'amar' is done.
</p><p>
(c) Finally, the Rashba suggests that Rav Yosef -- who asked the first question -- was not aware of the Beraisa. The Gemara (and not Rav Yosef) cites the Beraisa now as an additional question on the opinion of Rav Oshiya.
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, Yibum or Chalitzah with one woman 
               (i.e. the one who did not receive the Ma'amar) 
               exempts her Tzarah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If Ba'alas ha'Ma'amar (the woman that received 
                    the Ma'amar) does Chalitzah, her Tzarah is not 
                    exempted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Meir says, if Shimon did Yibum and died, and then 
               Levi was born, both women are exempt from Chalitzah 
               and Yibum. The same applies if Levi was born and 
               then Shimon did Yibum and died;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, since he (Levi) entered the world 
               when she (the first widow) was permitted, and she 
               was never forbidden to him, he may do Yibum or 
               Chalitzah with either one.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why was the last clause taught?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> it teaches about R. Meir's opinion.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> R. Meir does not distinguish whether Levi 
               was born before or after Yibum. Both cases should 
               have been taught together!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, it teaches about R. Shimon's opinion.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that R. Shimon argues only when the Yibum 
               preceded the birth, but admits when the birth 
               preceded the Yibum.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MA'AMAR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If Shimon was going to give a Ma'amar, and a 
          brother was born before he did, and Shimon died, the 
          first widow is exempt due to Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah 
          b'Olamo. The second does Chalitzah or Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean, he was going to give a 
          Ma'amar but did not? It matters whether or not he gave 
          it, not his intent to give it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He wanted to give it with her consent, but was 
          not able, and gave it against her will.	This is 
          unlike Rebbi:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> A Ma'amar given against the will 
               of the Yevamah is valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that it is invalid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Rebbi learns about Ma'amar from Yibum. Just like Yibum 
          works against her will, also Ma'amar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim learn from regular Kidushin, which 
               requires her consent.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rebbi says that it is better to learn matters of a 
               Yevamah from matters of a Yevamah. Chachamim say 
               that it is better to learn Kidushin from Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If Shimon gave a Ma'amar before or after Levi 
          was born, and died, the first widow is exempt due to 
          Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo. The second does 
          Chalitzah, not Yibum;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon says, Yibum or Chalitzah with one woman exempts 
          her Tzarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Which case does R. Shimon discuss?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He discusses when the Ma'amar was given 
               after the birth.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> We proved that R. Shimon admits when the 
               birth precedes Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He discusses when the Ma'amar preceded the birth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If he does Chalitzah to Ba'alas ha'Ma'amar, 
          her Tzarah is not exempted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  This is because the Tzarah definitely fell to Yibum to 
          Levi, but Ba'alas ha'Ma'amar is Safek (if Ma'amar is not 
          like Yibum, she is Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo). A 
          Safek Chalitzah cannot exempt a Vadai Yevamah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'CHACHAMIM'S' REASON</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Menasheh bar Zvid):</font></b> What is R. Shimon's 
          reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The Beraisa explicitly says, because she was 
          permitted from the day he was born!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, what is Chachamim's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'V'Lokchah Lo l'Ishah v'Yibmah' - she still is 
          considered a Yevamah from her first husband.
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE REASON OF R. SHIMON</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> When he does Yibum, she is like his 
          wife in all respects.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yosi bar Chanina):</font></b> This teaches that he can 
               divorce her and remarry her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Here too, we should say that she still has the 
               status of a Yevamah, and Chalitzah should be 
               required (to divorce her)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'V'Lokchah Lo l'Ishah' - once he takes her, she 
          is like his wife in all respects.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But it also says 'v'Yibmah' (she is still like 
          a Yevamah)! Why do we expound this regarding Eshes Achiv 
          she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo, but not regarding divorce?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is reasonable to apply the Heter (to divorce 
          without Chalitzah) to the permitted case (regular Yibum), 
          and the Isur to the forbidden case (Eshes Achiv she'Lo 
          Hayah b'Olamo).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Shimon says that since he entered the world 
          when she was permitted, she remains permitted. If: Levi 
          was born after his maternal sister (Dinah) married 
          Shimon's paternal brother (Yosef), and then Yosef died, 
          R. Shimon should permit Yibum, since Levi found her 
          permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No. The Isur of a maternal sister is there!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Here also, R. Shimon should say that the Isur 
          of Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo is there!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That Isur is sometimes lifted. A maternal sister 
          is never permitted.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WOMEN THAT DO 'CHALITZAH', NOT 'YIBUM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Klal (general rule) is, any Isur of Ervah 
          does neither Yibum nor Chalitzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  An Isur of Mitzvah or Kedushah does Chalitzah but not 
          Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Isurim of Mitzvah are Sheniyos (relatives forbidden 
               mid'Rabanan). Isurim of Kedushah are a widow to a 
               Kohen Gadol, a divorcee or a Chalutzah to a regular 
               Kohen, a Mamzeres or Nesinah to a Yisrael, and a Bas 
               Yisrael to a Nasin or Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Her sister that is her Yevamah does Chalitzah or Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What does 'the Klal' come to include?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Answer (Rafram bar Papa):</font></b> It includes Tzaras 
          Ailonis, like Rav Asi holds.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> Inference: Regarding Isurim of Ervah the 
          Tzarah is forbidden. In other cases, the Tzarah is 
          permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does this come to exclude?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rafram bar Papa):</font></b> It includes Tzaras 
               Ailonis, unlike Rav Asi. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Her sister that is her Yevamah...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Whose sister is this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It is the sister of Isurei Mitzvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, Isurei Mitzvah fall to Yibum 
               like regular Yevamos, so he may not marry the 
               sister!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is the sister of Ervah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Isurim of Mitzvah are Sheniyos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why are they called Isurei Mitzvah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It is a Mitzvah to obey the commands of 
          Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Isurim of Kedushah are a widow to a Kohen 
          Gadol...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why are these called Isurei Kedushah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It says about Kohanim 'Kedoshim Yihyu (they will 
          observe Isurei Kehunah)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Yehudah learns oppositely. Isurim of 
          Mitzvah are a widow to a Kohen Gadol...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why are these called Isurei Mitzvah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'Eleh ha'Mitzvos' (refers to all the Mitzvos 
               in Vayikra, including Isurei Kehunah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does R. Yehudah call Sheniyos Isurei 
          Kedushah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> One who fulfills mid'Rabanan Mitzvos 
          is called Kadosh.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> If one does not keep mid'Rabanan 
          Mitzvos, is he merely not called Kadosh? He is called a 
          Rasha!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Mekadesh (sanctify) yourselves through 
          (abstention from) what is permitted to you.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'YIBUM' OF 'CHAYVEI' 'LAVIN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A widow to a Kohen Gadol...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  We do not distinguish whether she was widowed from 
          Kidushin or Nisu'in.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We understand this if she was widowed from 
          marriage. A Lav and an Aseh forbid her, and an Aseh 
          (Yibum) does not override them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But if she was widowed from Kidushin, only a Lav 
               forbids her. The Aseh should override it (Yibum 
               should be allowed)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Gidal):</font></b> '<i>Yevimto</i> will ascend to the 
          gate' is extra, to teach that there is a Yevamah that 
          does Chalitzah but not Yibum, i.e. Chayavei Lavin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps it refers to Chayavei Kerisos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'If he does not want' connotes that if he 
               wanted, he could do Yibum. Anyone that could do 
               Yibum (but does not want to) does Chalitzah. Anyone 
               that cannot do Yibum does not do Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so the same should apply to Chayavei 
               Lavin!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'Yevimto' includes them among those who do 
               Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> (The verse does not specify what to 
               include and exclude.) Why do we include Chayavei 
               Lavin and exclude Chayavei Kerisos, and not 
               vice-versa?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) YIBUM WITH CHAYAVEI LAVIM AND CHAYAVEI KERISUS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah lists several types of prohibitions which exempt a woman from Yibum. One of these types is a 'prohibition due to Kedushah (sanctity),' which refers to the prohibition against a Kohen Gadol marrying an Almanah (widow). When the brother of the Kohen Gadol dies childless, the Kohen Gadol and the widow may not do Yibum.
</p><p>
The Gemara infers from the Mishnah that the prohibition against doing Yibum applies to both an Almanah from Nisu'in (who was completely married to the Kohen Gadol's brother) and to an Almanah from Erusin (who was only betrothed to his brother). That an Almanah from Nisu'in does not do Yibum is understandable -- the Torah prohibits a Kohen Gadol from marrying an Almanah with both a Mitzvas Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh, and the Aseh of Yibum cannot override both an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh. However, why is an Almanah from Erusin exempt from Yibum? The Torah prohibits her to a Kohen Gadol only with a Lo Ta'aseh, and the Aseh of Yibum should override the Lo Ta'aseh.
</p><p>
The Gemara first answers that the verse of 'Yevimto' (Devarim 25:7) teaches that Chayavei Lavim may not do Yibum. The Gemara then asks that perhaps the verse exempts only Chayavei Kerisus, but it does not exempt Chayavei Lavim from Yibum. The Gemara answers that a different phrase teaches that Chayavei Kerisus are exempt from Yibum and Chalitzah: 'If the man does not want to marry his Yevamah...' (Devarim 25:7).
</p><p>
The Gemara then asks, 'Mah Ra'is?' -- 'what do you see [to include Chayavei Kerisus in the second verse, and Chayavei Lavim in the first verse]?' Perhaps Chayavei Lavim are included in the <i>second verse</i> and thus they may do neither Yibum nor Chalitzah, while Chayavei Kerisus are included in the <i>first</i> verse and thus they may do Chalitzah. What determines which phrase refers to Chayavei Lavim and which phrase refers to Chayavei Kerisus?
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that it is logical that the type of prohibition for which ordinary Kidushin can take effect (Chayavei Lavim) needs Chalitzah, while the type of prohibition for which ordinary Kidushin does not take effect (Chayavei Kerisus) does not need Chalitzah.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains how the phrase 'Yevimto' teaches that Chayavei Lavim are exempt from Yibum but not from Chalitzah. In the verse, 'If the man does not want to marry his Yevamah (Yevimto), then his Yevamah (Yevimto) shall go up to the gate to the elders...,' the second word 'Yevimto' is not necessary. The verse should have said, 'If the man does not want to marry his Yevamah (Yevimto), then <i>she</i> shall go up to the gate...'; it would have been obvious that it is the Yevamah who must go up to the gate. It must be that the extra word 'Yevimto' teaches that there is case in which the obligation of Chalitzah applies even though the obligation of Yibum does not apply. Since the verse says, 'If he does not want <i>to take</i> (Lakachas),' it implies that Chalitzah is done only when it is possible to do Yibum ('to take' her). The word 'Yevimto' teaches that even when there is no possibility of 'Lakachas,' there is still an obligation of Chalitzah. Had the verse omitted the second 'Yevimto,' one would have thought that Chayavei Lavim are exempt not only from Yibum but also from Chalitzah.
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand. Why does Rashi say that without the phrase of 'Yevimto,' one would have thought that Chayavei Lavim are exempt from both Yibum and Chalitzah? The Gemara clearly states that Chayavei Lavim <i>should</i> be obligated to do Yibum because the Aseh of Yibum should override the Lo Ta'aseh of the Lav, and the Gemara searches for a verse that teaches that there nevertheless is <i>no</i> obligation of Yibum. Rashi, however, says that <i>without</i> any such verse, one would have assumed that Chayavei Lavim have <i>no</i> obligation of Yibum and the only reason why a verse is needed is to teach that they <i>do</i> have Chalitzah. What does Rashi mean? (<b>RISHONIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b>, <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b>, and <b>RITVA</b> answer that Rashi's intention is as follows. The Gemara's source that Chayavei Lavim are exempt from Yibum is <i>not</i> from the extra word 'Yevimto' at all, even though the Gemara mentions this Derashah. Rather, the source is from the word 'Lakachas' in the same verse. The verse says that only when the Yavam does not want to take her ('Lakachas') does the obligation of Chalitzah apply. That word teaches that Yibum may be done only with a woman whom he could marry as a normal wife (and not just through Yibum), such as by doing Yibum with her, divorcing her, and then remarrying her with the normal procedure of Kidushin and Nisu'in. (The Gemara earlier (8b) derives from 'u'Lekachah' that if he divorces her after the Yibum he may remarry her, and the Gemara here (according to this explanation of Rashi) adds that this is a criterion for Yibum: the obligation of Yibum applies only when the man would be permitted to remarry her if he were to divorce her after Yibum). The word 'Yevimto' which the Gemara cites adds a second point: now that the word 'Lakachas' teaches a case in which there is no Yibum (that is, the Derashah which is not articulated by the Gemara), 'Yevimto' teaches that there nevertheless <i>is</i> an obligation to do Chalitzah.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the Gemara leaves out part of the Derashah ('Lakachas') which it should have cited. The Gemara cites the Derashah of 'Yevimto,' which teaches that Chayavei Lavim must do Chalitzah, because it knew that Rava would ask a question from a Beraisa which discusses that obligation of Chalitzah.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi give this explanation and not the simple explanation that 'Yevimto' excludes Chayavei Lavim from Yibum (and not that it includes them in Chalitzah), as Rashi himself implies later (84a, DH v'Ha)?
</p><p>
Apparently, Rashi intends to answer the perplexing questions that <b>TOSFOS</b> raises on the Gemara (DH Iy Hachi and DH Mistavra). Tosfos asks how the Gemara can suggest ('Mah Ra'is') that the word 'Yevimto' should teach that Chayavei Kerisus are obligated to do Chalitzah but not Yibum, and that the word 'Lakachas' should teach that Chayavei Lavim are obligated to do neither Chalitzah nor Yibum? If 'Yevimto' teaches nothing about Chayavei Lavim, no other verse teaches that they are exempt from Yibum. Hence, perhaps both Yibum and Chalitzah apply to Chayavei Lavim (because of the principle that whenever Yibum applies, Chalitzah also applies).
</p><p>
According to Rashi's understanding of the Gemara, Tosfos' question is no question. Chayavei Lavim are not obligated to do Yibum because of a different Derashah -- 'Lakachas.' Accordingly, even if 'Yevimto' does not teach that Chayavei Lavim do not do Yibum, <i>another</i> source teaches that they do not do Yibum -- the verse of 'Lakachas.' (The Rishonim agree that this is the most straightforward explanation of Rashi's words and of the Gemara.)
</p><p>
(b) The interpretation of the Rishonim, however, does not seem consistent with Rashi's words. According to the Rishonim, the word 'Lakachas' teaches that when a <i>normal</i> Kidushin cannot take effect when she is <i>not</i> a Yevamah, the woman is exempt from Yibum as well. However, Rashi (end of DH Yesh Lecha) implies that 'Lakachas' means that <i>Yibum</i> cannot be done with her, and not that an ordinary Kidushin cannot be done. Rashi writes that the reason why Chayavei Lavim are not included in the category of 'Lakachas' is that 'they do not have Yibum'; he does not say that it is because they cannot do a normal Kidushin. (See also <b>RABEINU AVRAHAM MIN HA'HAR</b>, cited later in Insights to Yevamos 20:3. Perhaps the Rishonim's text of Rashi did not read, '[Chayavei Lavim are not included in the category of 'Lakachas'] <i>because</i> they do not have Yibum,' but rather, '[Chayavei Lavim are not included in the category of 'Lakachas'] <i>and</i> they do not have Yibum.')
</p><p>
Therefore, perhaps another interpretation for the words of Rashi may be suggested. Rashi understands that when the Gemara asks that Chayavei Lavim <i>should</i> be obligated to do Yibum because the Aseh of Yibum should override the Lo Ta'aseh, the Gemara was uncertain whether the rule of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh' indeed applies. In the case of Yibum, it is possible to do Chalitzah instead of Yibum and thereby avoid transgressing the Lo Ta'aseh, as Rashi himself writes earlier (6a, DH Ela) and as Rava later suggests (end of 20b). The Gemara is not asking that the Aseh <i>definitely</i> should override the Lo Ta'aseh in the case of an Almanah who falls to a Kohen Gadol for Yibum. Rather, the Gemara is asking that whether or not the rule of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh' applies, there will be a problem in this case: if the Aseh does not override the Lo Ta'aseh (because Chalitzah can be done instead of Yibum) and thus there is no Yibum, then why is there Chalitzah? The Gemara (3a) says that whenever there is no obligation of Yibum, there is also no obligation of Chalitzah! On the other hand, if the Aseh <i>does</i> override the Lo Ta'aseh, then <i>both</i> obligations should apply, Yibum and Chalitzah!
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that perhaps the principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh' does not apply, and the reason why the obligation of Chalitzah applies is the verse of 'Yevimto.' In response to this answer, the Gemara asks 'Mah Ra'is' -- perhaps Chayavei Lavim have neither Yibum (since 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh' does not apply) nor Chalitzah (since there is no obligation of Yibum), and 'Yevimto' teaches that Chayavei <i>Kerisus</i> have Chalitzah.
</p><p>
The Gemara could have answered that in truth the Aseh of Yibum <i>does</i> override the Lo Ta'aseh of Chayavei Lavim, and the word 'Yevimto' teaches not only that Chayavei Lavim do Chalitzah, but that they do not do Yibum (as Tosfos explains). However, from the progression of its questions, it is evident that the Gemara prefers to suggest that 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh' does not apply here and thus no verse is needed to teach that there is no obligation of Yibum.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, however, why does Rashi (DH Tafsi Bah Kidushin) write with regard to Chayavei Lavim that 'Karinan Bei 'Lakachas' b'Di'eved' -- Kidushin takes effect b'Di'eved if one marries a woman who is prohibited to him with a Lav? If 'Lakachas' means that he is to take her with Yibum, then even b'Di'eved the Yibum should not work if the Aseh does not override the Lo Ta'aseh (because the Gemara (20b) says that whenever Yibum is prohibited, it does not take effect even b'Di'eved). According to the Rishonim's explanation, Rashi means 'Kerinan Bei Lakachas' with regard to <i>normal Kidushin</i> and not with regard to Yibum, and thus Rashi's words make sense. According to the present explanation, however, what does Rashi mean? For an answer to this question, and for an explanation of the words of Rashi later (84a) which imply a different approach to Chayavei Lavim, see Insights to Yevamos 20:4 and 84:2. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


