Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHICH ASPECTS OF YIBUM REQUIRE PROPER RELATIONS

(a) Less than this is only considered as touching, and one is not liable for this; this argues on Shmuel.
(b) (Mishnah): One who does Ha'arah is as one who has full relations - he acquires.
(c) Question: (One who had relations with his Yevamah, not intending for Yibum) - regarding what does he acquire?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav): He acquires in all respects.
(e) Answer #2 (Shmuel): He only acquires regarding what is written in the Parshah - to inherit his brother, and to exempt her from Yibum.
(f) Version #1: If she fell to Yibum from Nisu'in, all agree that she eats (Terumah), since she ate before.

1. They argue when she fell from engagement.
2. Rav says she eats, since the Torah considered relations without awareness as if he was aware.
3. Shmuel says, the Torah considered it as relations to make the Yavam as the deceased husband, not to make him stronger!

i. This is consistent with another teaching of Shmuel.
ii. (Shmuel): Any case where the deceased husband permitted her to eat, the Yavam permits her (with substandard relations); any case where the deceased husband did not permit her to eat, the Yavam does not permit her.

(g) Question (Beraisa): A Bas Yisrael is engaged to a Kohen. He became deaf before Nisu'in - she does not eat. If he died, and she fell to Yibum do a deaf brother - she eats. This is the case where the Yavam is stronger than the 1st husband.

1. This is as Rav, but against Shmuel.

(h) Answer: The Beraisa is to be understood as follows: if her betrothed did not marry her before he became deaf, she does not eat; if he did Nisu'in and then became deaf, she eats. If he died and she fell to Yibum to a deaf brother, she eats.
(i) Question: What does the Beraisa say at the end, "This is the case"?
(j) Answer: If the 1st husband was deaf from the beginning, she would not eat; she can eat from the Yavam, even if he was always deaf.
(k) Version #2: If she fell to Yibum from engagement, all agree that she does not eat, since she did not eat in the life of her husband.

1. They argue when she fell from Nisu'in.
2. Rav says she eats, since she ate before.
3. Shmuel says, the Torah considered relations without intent as intentional relations regarding things written in the Parshah; not to make him stronger!
4. Question: This contradicts another teaching of Shmuel!

i. (Shmuel): Any case where the deceased husband permitted her to eat, the Yavam permits her.

5. Correction: Shmuel said, any relations with which the husband permits her to eat, the Yavam permits her; any relations with which the husband does not permit her to eat, the Yavam does not permit her.

(l) Question (Beraisa): A Bas Yisrael is engaged to a Kohen. He became deaf before Nisu'in - she does not eat. If he died, and she fell to Yibum do a deaf brother - she eats. This is the case where the Yavam is stronger than the 1st husband.

1. Rav can answer as we answered for Shmuel in Version #1.
2. This is difficult on Shmuel in our version.

(a) (Beraisa): A Bas Yisrael is engaged to a Kohen. He became deaf before Nisu'in - she does not eat. If she bears a son - she eats. If the son dies - R. Noson says, she eats; Chachamim say, she does not eat.
(b) Question: What is the reason for R. Noson?
(c) Answer #1 (Rabah): Since she already ate, she continues to eat.
(d) Question (Abaye): According to this, if a Bas Yisrael is married to a Kohen, and he dies - she should continue to eat, since she once ate?!
(e) Answer (Abaye): Rather, since he died, his sanctity leaves her. Here also, when the son dies, his sanctity leaves her.
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):R. Noson holds, marriage of a deaf man allows her to eat Terumah, and we do not decree marriage of a deaf man on account of engagement of a deaf man.
(g) Question (Abaye): If so, why did the Beraisa have to mention the birth of a son?
(h) Answer: To show that Chachamim argue even in that case.
(i) Question: R. Noson should argue on Chachamim at the beginning of the Beraisa!
(j) Answer: He waited until they finished saying their law, then argues upon them.
(k) Question: If so, R. Noson's words should follow Chachamim's!

1. This is left difficult.

(a) (Mishnah): Similarly, one who has relations with any Ervah ...

(b) (Rav Amram): The wife of a Yisrael that was raped, even though she is permitted to her husband, she is disqualified to Kehunah.

1. This may be learned from our Mishnah - similarly, one who has relations with any Ervah ...
2. Question: Why does it say 'Similarly'?

i. Suggestion: We do not distinguish, if he was aware or not, willing or forced - in all cases, she is disqualified!

3. Answer #1: No - 'similarly' refers to Ha'arah (that it is considered as relations).

i. Question: For which cases was this taught?
ii. Suggestion: If for Arayos - this suggests that Ha'arah of Arayos is learned from a Yevamah - contrarily, Yevamah is learned from Arayos!

4. Answer #2: Rather, 'Similarly', Chaivei Lavin are liable for unnatural relations.

(c) Version #1: (Rabah): A Kohen's wife that was raped - her husband is lashed for relations with her, since she is a Zonah.
(d) Question: He is lashed for Zonah, but not for the prohibition "After Hutamah (she was defiled)"?
(e) Answer: He is lashed even for Zonah.
(f) Question (R. Zeira - Beraisa): "She was not grabbed" - she is forbidden - had she been forced, she would be permitted; there is a case where even if forced, she is forbidden - a Kohen's wife.

1. Suggestion: This is a Lav derived from an Ase, it is as a Mitvas Ase.

(g) Answer (Rabah): Normally, a woman that had forbidden relations becomes a Zonah. The Torah revealed that by a Yisrael's wife, if "She was not grabbed" - she is forbidden, but if she was forced, she is permitted.

1. By a Kohen's wife, we are left with the normal rule that forbidden relations make her a Zonah (even if she was forced).

(h) Version #2: (Rabah): A Kohen's wife that was raped - her husband is lashed for relations with her, for Tumah.

1. He is lashed for Tumah, but not for Zonah - we see, she does not become a Zonah when forced.

(i) Question (R. Zeira - Beraisa): "She was not grabbed" - she is forbidden - had she been forced, she would be permitted; there is a case where even if forced, she is forbidden - a Kohen's wife.

1. Suggestion: This is a Lav derived from an Ase, it is as a Mitvas Ase.

(j) Answer (Rabah): A married woman that committed adultery is forbidden because of "After Hutamah". The Torah revealed that by a Yisrael's wife, if "She was not grabbed" - she is forbidden, but if she was forced, she is permitted.

1. By a Kohen's wife, she is forbidden even if she was forced.

(a) (Mishnah): A widow engaged to a Kohen Gadol, a divorced woman or a Chalutzah to a regular Kohen may not eat Terumah; R. Elazar and R. Shimon permit;

1. If they were widowed or divorced from Nisu'in, they are disqualified; from engagement, they are Kesheros.

(b) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Meir): If permitted engagement does not allow a woman to eat Terumah, all the more so forbidden engagement!

1. Chachamim: No - permitted engagement never permits eating Terumah - you cannot learn to forbidden engagement, which permits eating Terumah in some scenario.

(c) (R. Elazar): A Kohen that is a Petzu'a Daka (his private parts were crushed) - that engaged a Bas Yisrael - R. Meir argues with R. Elazar and R. Shimon if she may eat Terumah.

1. R. Meir says that a woman married to a man that she is forbidden to have relations with mi'Dioraisa, may not eat Terumah - here also, she does not eat;
2. R. Elazar and R. Shimon say that a woman married to a man that she is forbidden to have relations with mi'Dioraisa, may eat Terumah - here also, she may eat.