Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ARGUMENTS AGAINST R. ELIEZER

(a) (Beraisa): After R. Eliezer died, 4 Tana'im challenged his position.
(b) (R. Tarfon): If Leah was divorced on condition that she not marry Levi, and she married Levi's brother Reuven - if Reuven dies without children, Yibum is uprooted (if she would do Yibum - this would uproot the marriage to Reuven, and hence the Yibum is also uprooted)!

1. This shows that such a divorce is invalid.

(c) (R. Yosi ha'Galili): We never find that what is permitted to some is forbidden to others - what is permitted is permitted to all, what is forbidden is forbidden to all!

1. This shows that such a divorce is invalid.

(d) (R. Eliezer ben Azaryah): "Krisus" - this is something which severs between them - this case is not Krisus!
(e) (R. Akiva): If Leah was divorced on condition that she not marry Levi, and she married David, had children from him, and then married Levi after David died or divorced her - this will uproot her marriage to David, and her children from David are Mamzerim;

1. This shows that (the first) divorce is invalid.

(f) (R. Akiva): Also: if Reuven divorced Leah except for Itamar (a Kohen), and then Reuven died - she is a divorcee regarding all other men, but only a widow regarding Itamar. (Nevertheless she is forbidden to him, as we expounded above - even if she is only permitted to 1 man, or only divorced from her husband, she is forbidden to Kohanim)!

1. The prohibition of a divorcee to a Kohen is light (only a Lav), still she is forbidden to Itamar because she is a divorcee regarding other men;
2. All the more so, regarding the severe prohibition of a married woman, she should be forbidden to all men because she is not divorced regarding Itamar!

i. This shows that such a divorce is invalid.

(g) (R. Yehoshua): You cannot refute R. Eliezer after his death.
(h) (Rava): One can dispel all the questions except for that of R. Eliezer ben Azaryah.

1. Support (Beraisa - R. Yosi): R. Eliezer ben Azaryah asked the best question.

(i) Beraisa (R. Tarfon): If David divorced Leah without permitting her to Levi, and she married Levi's brother Reuven - if Reuven dies without children, David uprooted a matter (Yibum) from the Torah!
(j) Objection: David did not uproot anything!
(k) Answer: Rather, he stipulated to uproot a matter from the Torah.
(l) Objection: He did not stipulation that she must marry Levi's brother!
(m) Answer: Rather, he caused it to be uprooted.
(n) Objection: If so, a man (Moshe) should not be able to marry his brother's daughter, lest Moshe die without children, and Yibum will be uprooted (since the Yavam is the widow's father)!

1. This is how R. Tarfon's question is dispelled.

(o) Question: Did R. Tarfon understand that R. Eliezer spoke of 'except' or 'on condition that'?

1. Suggestion: If he spoke of 'except' - but R. Eliezer says that in such a case, she is permitted to Levi after Reuven dies!
2. (Beraisa): R. Eliezer admits that if a man divorces his wife and says 'You are permitted to all men except Levi', and then she married another man and was widowed or divorced, she is permitted to Levi.

(p) Answer: Rather, he understood that R. Eliezer spoke of 'on condition that'.

(a) (R. Yosi ha'Galili): We never find that what is permitted to some is forbidden to others - what is permitted is permitted to all, what is forbidden is forbidden to all!
(b) Question: Terumah is forbidden to non-Kohanim, Kodshim are forbidden to Tamei people!
(c) Answer: R. Yosi ha'Galili refers to prohibitions of a woman.
(d) Question: The incestuous relationships only apply to relatives, they are permitted to others!
(e) Answer: He refers to prohibitions that come through engagement.
(f) Objection: A married woman is permitted to her husband and forbidden to all others!

1. This is how R. Yosi ha'Galili's question is dispelled.

(g) Question: Did R. Yosi ha'Galili understand that R. Eliezer spoke of 'except' or 'on condition that'?

1. Suggestion: If he spoke of 'on condition that' - if so, she is indeed permitted to all (the Get does not forbid extramarital relations with Levi)!

(h) Answer: Rather, he understood that R. Eliezer spoke of 'on condition that'.
(i) (R. Akiva): If Leah was divorced on condition that she not marry Levi, and she married David, had children from him, and then married Levi after David died or divorced her - this will uproot her marriage to David, and her children from David are Mamzerim;
(j) Question: The same applies to any Get given on condition, she should not remarry, lest she will not fulfill the stipulation, and this will uproot the Get and her second marriage, and the children will be Mamzerim!

1. This is how R. Akiva's question is dispelled.

(k) Question: Did R. Akiva understand that R. Eliezer spoke of 'except' or 'on condition that'?

1. Suggestion: If he spoke of 'except' - but R. Eliezer says that in such a case, she is permitted to Levi after Reuven dies!
2. (Beraisa): R. Eliezer admits that if a man divorces his wife and says 'You are permitted to all men except Levi', and then she married another man and was widowed or divorced, she is permitted to Levi.

(l) Answer: Rather, he understood that R. Eliezer spoke of 'on condition that'.
(m) (R. Akiva): Also: if Reuven divorced Leah except for Itamar (a Kohen), and then Reuven died - she is a divorcee regarding all other men, but only a widow regarding Itamar. (Nevertheless she is forbidden to him, as we expounded above - even if she is only permitted to 1 man, or only divorced from her husband, she is forbidden to Kohanim)!
(n) Question: Did R. Akiva understand that R. Eliezer spoke of 'except' or 'on condition that'?

1. Suggestion: If he spoke of 'on condition that' - if so, regarding extramarital relations she is indeed divorced with respect to Levi (so there is no Kal va'Chomer)!

(o) Answer: Rather, he understood that R. Eliezer spoke of 'on condition that'.
(p) Question: R. Akiva contradicts himself! If he holds that R. Eliezer spoke of 'except' - he should only ask that case! If he holds 'on condition that' - he should only ask that case!
(q) Answer: R. Akiva heard different opinions regarding in what case R. Eliezer said his law - he asked a question according to each version.
(r) Question: How can his second question be dispelled?

1. Suggestion: If you will say that the prohibition of a divorced woman to a Kohen is different than other prohibitions - but R. Eliezer learns his law from a Kohen's prohibition to a divorcee, he must hold that it is no different!

(s) Answer: Rava must hold as R. Yanai, that his source is "And she will be (engaged) to a man".

(a) (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): You cannot refute R. Eliezer after his death.
(b) Question: This implies that R. Yehoshua holds as R. Eliezer - but he also asked a question!
(c) Answer: Even though he also had a question, he informed them that they should not feel that R. Eliezer is refuted.
(d) (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): The Torah equates a woman's situation before her first marriage to her situation before her second marriage.

1. Just as before her first marriage, she is not tied to anyone - also before her second marriage.

(e) (Beraisa): R. Eliezer admits that if a man divorces his wife and says 'You are permitted to all men except Levi', and then she married another man and was widowed or divorced, she is permitted to Levi.
(f) Question (R. Shimon ben Elazar): We never find that 1 person can permit the prohibition made by another!

1. Question: We do find this - a Yavam can do Chalitzah, permitting the prohibition of the dead brother!
2. Answer: There, the prohibition (for a Yevamah to marry a stranger) is due to the Yavam himself - from the aspect of the dead brother, she is permitted.
3. Question: A Chacham can permit the vow of another person!
4. Answer: R. Yochanan taught - a Chacham only permits through the regret of the one who vowed.
5. Question: A husband can annul his wife's vows!
6. Answer: As R. Pinchus taught - a woman only vows on condition that her husband wants the vow.

(g) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Azaryah): "Krisus" - this is something which severs between them - if she is as Moshe's wife regarding Levi, this is not Krisus!
(h) Question: The other Tana'im did not ask this - what do they learn from "Krisus"?
(i) Answer (Beraisa): 'This is your Get on condition that you never drink wine, or that you will never go to your father's house' - the Get is invalid, since this is not Krisus;

1. If the stipulation was for 30 days, this is Krisus.
2. R. Eliezer ben Azaryah also learns this - since it says "Krisus" and not "Kares", 2 laws may be learned.
3. The other Tana'im do not say that the plural form warrants learning another law.

(a) (Rava): 'This is your Get on condition that you do not drink wine for the rest of my life' - this is not Krisus; 'the rest of Peloni's life' - this is Krisus.
(b) Question: What is the difference?

1. 'The rest of Peloni's life' is Krisus, for Peloni may die, and the stipulation will be over - the same applies to 'the rest of my life'!

(c) Correction (Rava): Rather, 'This is your Get on condition that you do not drink wine for the rest of your life' - this is not Krisus; 'the rest of my life or Peloni's life' - this is Krisus.
(d) Question (Rava): (A man gave a Get saying) 'Today you are not my wife, tomorrow you are my wife' - what is the law?

1. This question may be asked according to R. Eliezer and according to Chachamim.
2. R. Eliezer only said that partial divorce works in a case that to whomever she is divorced, she is forever divorced; whomever she is permitted to, she is always permitted;

i. But here - perhaps this is invalid.

3. Chachamim only said that divorce does not work when she was never severed from her husband, even for a moment;

i. But here, once she is severed, she is forever divorced!

4. Answer (Rava): Presumably, once she is severed, she is forever severed, according to all.