2a
בית דין כדפרשינן אבל עיר הנדחת וכיוצא בהן לא
ואלא מאי ליתו שעירה כלומר מה נשאר לנו מן הקרבנות שאפשר להן שיביאו שעירה יחיד נמי היינו קרבנו ולא חלקנו בקרבנותיהן כלום הלכך אי אתה מוצא דרך לעשות חלוקה בקרבנותיהן
וא"כ לרבי למה הוצרך הכתוב לומר תורה אחת ופרקינן איצטריך הואיל וציבור בהוראה מייתו פר לעולה ושעיר לחטאת הני מרובין דעיר הנדחת ליתו איפכא
[אי נמי] צריך ואין לו תקנה
קמ"ל תורה אחת יהיה לכם ולומר לך שתקנתם בקרבן יחיד ואין אתה חולק בקרבנותיהן
האי הוא פירושא דהאי שמעתא ופירושא ברירא ונהירא הוא וליכא בה קושיא כלל ולא ספק ולא אצטריכין למכתבה להא דרבי הכא אלא כי היכי לברור' משום דקשיא להני רבוותא:
מתניתין דקתני חמש עשרה נשים פוטרות צרותיהן וצרות צרותיהן ר' יהודה היא דאוסר באנוסת אביו ולפיכך קתני חמש עשרה נשים ותו לא וקתני לה לאמו גבי שש עריות שצרותיהן מותרות
אבל רבנן דשרו באנוסת אביו שש עשרה נשים הן שפוטרות צרותיהן וצרות צרותיהן
וכן תני לוי במתניתיה אמו פעמים פוטרת צרתה ופעמים שאינה פוטרת צרתה כיצד היתה אמו נשואת אביו ונשאת לאחיו מאביו ומת זו היא אמו שאינה פוטרת צרתה
פי' משום דלא תפסי בה לאחיו קדושי' ולית ליה בה הויה משום דערוה היא
היתה אמו אנוסת אביו ונשאת לאחיו מאביו ומת זו היא אמו שפוטרת צרתה ואף על גב ששנו חכמים במשנתנו חמש עשרה נשים יש לך להוסיף שש עשרה כגון זאת:
וכולן אם מתו או מיאנו וכו'.
ירושלמי ובתו ממאנת ולאו נשואי תורה הן תפתר בקטנה שהשיאה אביה ונתגרשה שהיא כיתומה בחיי אביה:
בבלי בפ' האיש מקדש בו ובשלוחו
מותיב רב כהנא וכולן אם מתו או מיאנו או נתגרשו או שנמצאו אילונית צרותיהן מותרות
שקדשה מאן אילימא שקדשה אביה במיאון סגי לה גט מעליא בעיא
ואלא לאו דקדיש איהי נפשה וקתני דבעיא מיאון הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה כגון שנעשה לה מעשה יתומה בחיי אביה:
ת"ש המחזיר גרושתו משנשאת היא וצרתה חולצות
היא וצרתה ס"ד אלא או היא או צרתה
ולאו תרוצי קא מתרצת לה
תריץ הכי היא חולצת צרתה או חולצת או מתיבמת
ומסקנא כי האי תירוצא בתרא
דאמרינן כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן אחת צרת ממאנת
פירוש ממאנת ביבם
ואחת צרת אילונית ואחת צרת מחזיר גרושתו משנשאת כולן מותרות
ודוקא צרותיהן אבל אינהו גופייהו בדליכא בהדייהו צרות כל חדא מנייהו אית לה דינא באנפי נפשה
ממאנת ביבם דלית לה צרה אע"ג דלגבי יבם דמיאנה בו לאו בת חליצה ויבום איהי לגבי אחיו של יבם שריא וחולצת או מתיבמת
דאמר שמואל מיאנה בזה מותרת לזה
ואילונית לא חולצת ולא מתיבמת
דאמר קרא והיה הבכור אשר תלד פרט לאילונית שאינה יולדת
ומחזיר גרושתו משנשאת ומת חולצת ולא מתיבמת
אמר רבא הלכתא צרת אילונית מותרת ואפילו הכיר בה ואפילו צרת בתו אילונית
והא דקתני וכולן אם מתו או מיאנו או נתגרשו או שנמצאו אילונית צרותיהן מותרות שנמצאו אין מעיקרא לא תני שהיו:
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב צרת סוטה אסורה מאי טעמא טומאה כתיב בה כעריות
ואלא מאי ליתו שעירה כלומר מה נשאר לנו מן הקרבנות שאפשר להן שיביאו שעירה יחיד נמי היינו קרבנו ולא חלקנו בקרבנותיהן כלום הלכך אי אתה מוצא דרך לעשות חלוקה בקרבנותיהן
וא"כ לרבי למה הוצרך הכתוב לומר תורה אחת ופרקינן איצטריך הואיל וציבור בהוראה מייתו פר לעולה ושעיר לחטאת הני מרובין דעיר הנדחת ליתו איפכא
[אי נמי] צריך ואין לו תקנה
קמ"ל תורה אחת יהיה לכם ולומר לך שתקנתם בקרבן יחיד ואין אתה חולק בקרבנותיהן
האי הוא פירושא דהאי שמעתא ופירושא ברירא ונהירא הוא וליכא בה קושיא כלל ולא ספק ולא אצטריכין למכתבה להא דרבי הכא אלא כי היכי לברור' משום דקשיא להני רבוותא:
of Bet din, as we have explained, but an idolatrous city and the like, no.
But rather, what should he bring? A she-goat?
That is to say, what remains for us from the available sacrifices that it is possible to bring? A she-goat? An individual as well, this is his sacrifice, and we are then not distinguishing in their sacrifice anything at all. Therefore, you cannot find a way to make a distinction in their sacrifice. And if so, to Rabbi, why was the verse necessary to tell you תורה אחת?
And we resolve that it was necessary -- since a community following a ruling brings a bull as a burnt offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering, these many of the idolatrous city should bring the opposite. Alternatively, it is necessary and there is no fix. Therefore it informs us תורה אחת יהיה לכם, which tells us that their fix is with an individual's sacrifice, and you do not distinguish between their sacrifices.
This is the explanation of this sugya and it is a a clear and bright explanation, and there is not in it any difficulty at all, nor doubt. And we did not need to write this of Rabbi here {since it is not halacha lemaaseh bizman hazeh} except to elucidate it, because it was difficult for these {post-Talmudic} Sages.
{Yevamot 10a}
But rather, what should he bring? A she-goat?
That is to say, what remains for us from the available sacrifices that it is possible to bring? A she-goat? An individual as well, this is his sacrifice, and we are then not distinguishing in their sacrifice anything at all. Therefore, you cannot find a way to make a distinction in their sacrifice. And if so, to Rabbi, why was the verse necessary to tell you תורה אחת?
And we resolve that it was necessary -- since a community following a ruling brings a bull as a burnt offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering, these many of the idolatrous city should bring the opposite. Alternatively, it is necessary and there is no fix. Therefore it informs us תורה אחת יהיה לכם, which tells us that their fix is with an individual's sacrifice, and you do not distinguish between their sacrifices.
This is the explanation of this sugya and it is a a clear and bright explanation, and there is not in it any difficulty at all, nor doubt. And we did not need to write this of Rabbi here {since it is not halacha lemaaseh bizman hazeh} except to elucidate it, because it was difficult for these {post-Talmudic} Sages.
{Yevamot 10a}
מתניתין דקתני חמש עשרה נשים פוטרות צרותיהן וצרות צרותיהן ר' יהודה היא דאוסר באנוסת אביו ולפיכך קתני חמש עשרה נשים ותו לא וקתני לה לאמו גבי שש עריות שצרותיהן מותרות
אבל רבנן דשרו באנוסת אביו שש עשרה נשים הן שפוטרות צרותיהן וצרות צרותיהן
וכן תני לוי במתניתיה אמו פעמים פוטרת צרתה ופעמים שאינה פוטרת צרתה כיצד היתה אמו נשואת אביו ונשאת לאחיו מאביו ומת זו היא אמו שאינה פוטרת צרתה
פי' משום דלא תפסי בה לאחיו קדושי' ולית ליה בה הויה משום דערוה היא
היתה אמו אנוסת אביו ונשאת לאחיו מאביו ומת זו היא אמו שפוטרת צרתה ואף על גב ששנו חכמים במשנתנו חמש עשרה נשים יש לך להוסיף שש עשרה כגון זאת:
Our Mishna which specifies that 15 women exempt their rivals and their rivals' rivals is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits by the woman raped by his father, and therefore he specifies in the Mishna 15 women and no more, and he specifies "his mother" in another Mishna by the 6 forbidden relations that their rivals are permitted {in yibbum}.
But the Sages who permit by the woman raped by his father, there are 16 who exempt their rivals and their rivals' rivals.
And so did Levi teach in his brayta: His mother, sometimes she exempts her rival and sometimes she does not exempt her rival. How so? If his mother was married to his father and then married to his brother from his father's side, and then he {the brother} dies, this is the mother who does not exempt her rival.
To explain: Because betrothal did not take hold for his brother, and there is no having {as a wife} for she is a forbidden relation. {and therefore she is not one of the brother's wives, and so her rivals are not really rivals, and she does not enter into the equation of yibbum at all.}
If his mother was raped by his father {but his mother and father were never married} and then she married his brother from his father's side, and then he {the brother} died, this is his mother who exempts her rival.
And although the Sages teach in our Mishna 15 women, there is to add a 16th, such as this.
But the Sages who permit by the woman raped by his father, there are 16 who exempt their rivals and their rivals' rivals.
And so did Levi teach in his brayta: His mother, sometimes she exempts her rival and sometimes she does not exempt her rival. How so? If his mother was married to his father and then married to his brother from his father's side, and then he {the brother} dies, this is the mother who does not exempt her rival.
To explain: Because betrothal did not take hold for his brother, and there is no having {as a wife} for she is a forbidden relation. {and therefore she is not one of the brother's wives, and so her rivals are not really rivals, and she does not enter into the equation of yibbum at all.}
If his mother was raped by his father {but his mother and father were never married} and then she married his brother from his father's side, and then he {the brother} died, this is his mother who exempts her rival.
And although the Sages teach in our Mishna 15 women, there is to add a 16th, such as this.
וכולן אם מתו או מיאנו וכו'.
ירושלמי ובתו ממאנת ולאו נשואי תורה הן תפתר בקטנה שהשיאה אביה ונתגרשה שהיא כיתומה בחיי אביה:
"And all of them, if they died or they refused...":
Yerushalmi {Yevamot 70b}:
And can his daughter refuse?? {Refusal is when she marries when a minor when the father is not alive - in such a case, as a Rabbinic law, when she matures, she may refuse to stay married and thus the Rabbinic marriage is nullified. But here, we speak of the fact that it is his daughter, and the situation is where she refused. But that would entail him, her father, being dead! Which is obviously not the case here.}
Is it not a Biblical marriage? {For he is alive, and so he must have married off his daughter when she was a minor. If so, she requires divorce, not refusal!}
Explain it as a minor who her father married off, and then she divorced, that she is {halachically reckoned} as an orphan in the life of her father. {Such that he no longer is able to marry her off. Such that if as a minor, she subsequently married his brother, this is an instance in which refusal would work.}
Yerushalmi {Yevamot 70b}:
And can his daughter refuse?? {Refusal is when she marries when a minor when the father is not alive - in such a case, as a Rabbinic law, when she matures, she may refuse to stay married and thus the Rabbinic marriage is nullified. But here, we speak of the fact that it is his daughter, and the situation is where she refused. But that would entail him, her father, being dead! Which is obviously not the case here.}
Is it not a Biblical marriage? {For he is alive, and so he must have married off his daughter when she was a minor. If so, she requires divorce, not refusal!}
Explain it as a minor who her father married off, and then she divorced, that she is {halachically reckoned} as an orphan in the life of her father. {Such that he no longer is able to marry her off. Such that if as a minor, she subsequently married his brother, this is an instance in which refusal would work.}
בבלי בפ' האיש מקדש בו ובשלוחו
מותיב רב כהנא וכולן אם מתו או מיאנו או נתגרשו או שנמצאו אילונית צרותיהן מותרות
שקדשה מאן אילימא שקדשה אביה במיאון סגי לה גט מעליא בעיא
ואלא לאו דקדיש איהי נפשה וקתני דבעיא מיאון הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה כגון שנעשה לה מעשה יתומה בחיי אביה:
Bavli, in perek haIsh mekadesh bo uveShlucho:
Rav Kahana objected: "And all of them, if they died, refused, or divorced, or if they were found to be an aylonit {who is infertile}, their rivals are permitted {and require yibbum or chalitza}.
Who married her off? If you say her father married her off, would refusal suffice for her? A full bill of divorce is required! Would you rather say that she married herself off, and it teaches that refusal is required?
You objected and he resolved it -- such that an act was done to her {e.g. she was previously married off by her father and then she divorced} which rendered her {halachically} an orphan in the lifetime of her father.
{Yevamot 11a}
בעי רבי יוחנן המחזיר גרושתו משנשאת צרתה מהוRav Kahana objected: "And all of them, if they died, refused, or divorced, or if they were found to be an aylonit {who is infertile}, their rivals are permitted {and require yibbum or chalitza}.
Who married her off? If you say her father married her off, would refusal suffice for her? A full bill of divorce is required! Would you rather say that she married herself off, and it teaches that refusal is required?
You objected and he resolved it -- such that an act was done to her {e.g. she was previously married off by her father and then she divorced} which rendered her {halachically} an orphan in the lifetime of her father.
{Yevamot 11a}
ת"ש המחזיר גרושתו משנשאת היא וצרתה חולצות
היא וצרתה ס"ד אלא או היא או צרתה
ולאו תרוצי קא מתרצת לה
תריץ הכי היא חולצת צרתה או חולצת או מתיבמת
ומסקנא כי האי תירוצא בתרא
דאמרינן כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן אחת צרת ממאנת
פירוש ממאנת ביבם
ואחת צרת אילונית ואחת צרת מחזיר גרושתו משנשאת כולן מותרות
ודוקא צרותיהן אבל אינהו גופייהו בדליכא בהדייהו צרות כל חדא מנייהו אית לה דינא באנפי נפשה
ממאנת ביבם דלית לה צרה אע"ג דלגבי יבם דמיאנה בו לאו בת חליצה ויבום איהי לגבי אחיו של יבם שריא וחולצת או מתיבמת
דאמר שמואל מיאנה בזה מותרת לזה
ואילונית לא חולצת ולא מתיבמת
דאמר קרא והיה הבכור אשר תלד פרט לאילונית שאינה יולדת
ומחזיר גרושתו משנשאת ומת חולצת ולא מתיבמת
אמר רבא הלכתא צרת אילונית מותרת ואפילו הכיר בה ואפילו צרת בתו אילונית
והא דקתני וכולן אם מתו או מיאנו או נתגרשו או שנמצאו אילונית צרותיהן מותרות שנמצאו אין מעיקרא לא תני שהיו:
Rabbi Yochanan inquired: If one remarried his divorced wife when she married someone in the intervening time {a Biblical prohibition to remarry her exists}, what is the law regarding her rival?
Come and here: If one remarried his divorced wife when she married someone in the intervening time, both she and her rival undergo chalitza.
Both she and her rival {must undergo chalitza, and one of them does not suffice} do you think? Rather, either she or her rival.
And this is not a good answer/correction.
So answer as follows: She may undergoe chalitza or her rival may either undergo chalitza or yibbum.
And the conclusion is like this latter answer.
For we say: When Rabin came {from Israel} he cited Rabbi Yochanan: The following is true for the rival of the woman who refuses,
{Rif interjects:} To explain: She "refuses" the yavam {brother of the deceased who wishes to perform yibbum -- the situation is such that she married in a way such that she could have performed refusal on the husband, but he died, and now she has an equal status with the yavam [presumably who performed yibbum on her], and she may perform "refusal" on the yavam}
for the rival of the aylonit {who is infertile}, for the rival of the one who remarried the wife he divorced after her intervening marriage to another, all of them {the rivals} are permitted {and thus must have either yibbum or chalitza}.
And specifically their rivals, but they themselves, where they do not have rivals, each of them has a law in and of themselves:
The one who refuses the yavam, who does not have a rival: even though regarding this yavam whom she has refused, she has no status in regard to yibbum or chalitza, she, regarding the brothers of the yavam, is permitted, and therefore requires chalitza or yibbum.
For Shmuel said: If she "refused" this one, she is permitted to that one.
And an {infertile} aylonit: She undergoes chalitza but not yibbum.
For the verse stated {Devarim 25:6}:
alonit who does not bear.
And the woman who remarried her ex-husband after an intervening marriage, and then he died, she undergoes chalitza and not yibbum.
{Yevamot 12b}
Rava said: The halacha is that the rival of an aylonit is permitted {and thus requires yibbum or chalitza}, even if he {the original husband} recognized this about her {that she was an aylonit}, and even if the rival of his daughter {the aylonit} is herself an aylonit {this aylonit rival also requires chalitza}.
And this that it taught {in the Mishna}, "and all of them, if they died, refused, divorced, or were found to be an aylonit, their rivals are permitted {and thus require yibbum or chalitza}"
{with the word found implying it was discovered later, rather than that he knew going into the marriage} -- if it was found, yes, but if it was known initially, no -- {to that objection,} teach {instead in the Mishna} that they were {rather than that they were found to be}.
Come and here: If one remarried his divorced wife when she married someone in the intervening time, both she and her rival undergo chalitza.
Both she and her rival {must undergo chalitza, and one of them does not suffice} do you think? Rather, either she or her rival.
And this is not a good answer/correction.
So answer as follows: She may undergoe chalitza or her rival may either undergo chalitza or yibbum.
And the conclusion is like this latter answer.
For we say: When Rabin came {from Israel} he cited Rabbi Yochanan: The following is true for the rival of the woman who refuses,
{Rif interjects:} To explain: She "refuses" the yavam {brother of the deceased who wishes to perform yibbum -- the situation is such that she married in a way such that she could have performed refusal on the husband, but he died, and now she has an equal status with the yavam [presumably who performed yibbum on her], and she may perform "refusal" on the yavam}
for the rival of the aylonit {who is infertile}, for the rival of the one who remarried the wife he divorced after her intervening marriage to another, all of them {the rivals} are permitted {and thus must have either yibbum or chalitza}.
And specifically their rivals, but they themselves, where they do not have rivals, each of them has a law in and of themselves:
The one who refuses the yavam, who does not have a rival: even though regarding this yavam whom she has refused, she has no status in regard to yibbum or chalitza, she, regarding the brothers of the yavam, is permitted, and therefore requires chalitza or yibbum.
For Shmuel said: If she "refused" this one, she is permitted to that one.
And an {infertile} aylonit: She undergoes chalitza but not yibbum.
For the verse stated {Devarim 25:6}:
alonit who does not bear.
And the woman who remarried her ex-husband after an intervening marriage, and then he died, she undergoes chalitza and not yibbum.
{Yevamot 12b}
Rava said: The halacha is that the rival of an aylonit is permitted {and thus requires yibbum or chalitza}, even if he {the original husband} recognized this about her {that she was an aylonit}, and even if the rival of his daughter {the aylonit} is herself an aylonit {this aylonit rival also requires chalitza}.
And this that it taught {in the Mishna}, "and all of them, if they died, refused, divorced, or were found to be an aylonit, their rivals are permitted {and thus require yibbum or chalitza}"
{with the word found implying it was discovered later, rather than that he knew going into the marriage} -- if it was found, yes, but if it was known initially, no -- {to that objection,} teach {instead in the Mishna} that they were {rather than that they were found to be}.
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב צרת סוטה אסורה מאי טעמא טומאה כתיב בה כעריות
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: The rival of a sotah is forbidden {and thus needs no yibbum or chalitza}.
What is the reason? Impurity is written by her, just as by the forbidden relations.
What is the reason? Impurity is written by her, just as by the forbidden relations.
Posts
