Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ORDER OF THE MISHNAH

(a) Question: All the cases are learned through expounding!
(b) Answer: True, the law of Yibum (that relatives exempt the Tzarah) was learned from expounding, but the prohibition (even not in a situation of Yibum) of these relatives was explicit.

1. The prohibition of a daughter is only known through expounding.

i. (Rava): We learn that a daughter is prohibited through Gezerah Shavos "Henah-Henah" and "Zimah-Zimah".

(c) Question: If the Tana prefers what is learned by expounding, the case of his wife's sister (for which the law of Yibum is most explicit) should be taught last!
(d) Answer: Once the Tana started listing cases of sisters, he also taught the wife's sister.
(e) Objection: If so, let him teach the cases of sisters at the end!
(f) Answer #2 (To the question at the end of Daf 2B): Rather, the Tana taught the closest relations first.

1. First he taught his daughter, daughter's daughter and son's daughter, which are his own relatives;
2. Having taught 3 generations below himself, he then teaches 3 generations below his wife.
3. Having taught 3 generations below his wife, he teaches 3 generations above his wife.
4. He then teaches his sister and maternal aunt, which are his own relatives.
5. Once he is dealing with sisters, he teaches the case of his wife's sister.

i. It would have been proper to teach his daughter-in-law before the case of the wife of a brother who died before Shimon was born, since this prohibition is not because of her close relation to Shimon.
ii. Once the Tana was listing fraternal prohibitions, he included the wife of a brother who died before Shimon was born.

(a) Question: Why did the Tana say, she *exempts* her Tzaros from Yibum and Chalitzah - she prohibits them!
(b) Answer #1: If he said that she prohibits Yibum, we would think that Chalitzah is required.

1. Question: Let him say, she (also) prohibits Chalitzah!
2. Counter-question: What is wrong with doing Chalitzah (even if it is not needed)?!
3. Answer:: It is reasonable to prohibit unnecessary Chalitzah - if Chalitzah is allowed, people will come to do Yibum!

(c) Answer #2: Since the Tzarah is only prohibited by a case of Yibum, but is permitted when there is no Mitzvah, we taught 'she exempts'.
(d) Question: Why must it say, she exempts from Chalitzah and Yibum - it suffices to say, she exempts from Yibum!
(e) Answer: If so, we would have thought that she *does* do Chalitzah.

1. Rather, we learn, all that may do Yibum, do Chalitzah (if not Yibum); all that may not do Yibum, do not do Chalitzah.

(f) Question: Let the Mishnah say, she exempts from Yibum and Chalitzah (since Yibum is the main Mitzvah, it should be listed first); or, just say, she exempts from Chalitzah (and obviously, from Yibum)!
(g) Answer: The Mishnah is as Aba Shaul, who says that Chalitzah is preferable to Yibum.

(a) Question: Twice, the Mishnah says there are 15 cases - what other possibilities does it come to exclude?

(b) Answer: It excludes the cases of Rav and Rav Asi (Daf 11A, 12A).
(c) Question: According to Rav and Rav Asi, what do the 2 counts exclude?
(d) Answer: If each agrees to the law of his colleague, they exclude the Tzarah of a girl that does Mi'un, and the Tzarah of a divorced woman that (improperly) remarried her husband after having been married to someone else.

1. If Rav and Rav Asi argue on each other, one count excludes the case of his colleague; the other count excludes one of the 2 cases above (d).

(e) Question: According to Rav and Rav Asi, why didn't the Mishnah list their cases?
(f) Answer: Because the Tzarah of a Tzarah does not apply in their cases.

(a) Question: What is the source of the law of the Mishnah?
(b) Answer #1 (Beraisa): "Do not marry a woman Litzror (to be a Tzarah) to her sister, to have relations with her Aleha in her lifetime".
(c) Question: What do we learn from *Aleha*?
(d) Answer: It says by Yibum, her Yavam (brother-in-law) will have relations Aleha. One might have thought, this applies even she is his relative (in addition to being his brother's wife).

1. A Gezerah Shaveh teaches that both verses speak in a case of Yibum; we learn that when they are relatives, he may not marry her.

(e) Question: This teaches that Yibum with a relative is forbidden. How do we know that Yibum with her Tzarah is also forbidden?
(f) Answer: The verse says Litzror.
(g) Question: How do we know that the Tzarah of the Tzarah is forbidden?
(h) Answer: The verse says Litzror and not Latzor.
(i) Question: This teaches when the Yevamah (the widow standing to do Yibum) is the sister of the wife of the Yavam. How do we know that this applies to other forbidden relatives?
(j) Answer: One's wife's sister is a forbidden relative, for which relations are punishable by Kares (when they intended to sin) and Chatas (when they sinned unintentionally); she may not do Yibum - all such forbidden relatives may not do Yibum.
(k) Question: This teaches that the relatives may not do Yibum - how do we know that their Tzaros may not do Yibum?
(l) Answer: One's wife's sister is a forbidden relative, for which relations are punishable by Kares/Chatas, she and her Tzarah may not do Yibum - all such forbidden relatives, she and the Tzarah may not do Yibum.
(m) This is the source that the 15 cases of the Mishnah exempt the Tzaros, Tzaros of the Tzaros, ad infinitum from Chalitzah and Yibum.
(n) Question: Perhaps the 6 cases (of the Mishnah 13A) which are more stringent should also exempt the Tzaros?
(o) Answer: No - the wife's sister can marry a Yavam; we do not learn to the 6 stricter cases in which she cannot marry a Yavam.

1. This is because the law of a Tzarah only applies to co-wives of a brother.

(p) Question: This only teaches that Yibum may not be done. Where do we know the punishment if they do Yibum?
(q) Answer: "All that do any of these abominations ... (will get Kares)".

(a) The Torah had to write Aleha to prohibit Yibum with his wife's sister - otherwise, we would say that they do Yibum!

1. The reason is, a positive Mitzvah overrides a negative Mitzvah.

(b) Question #1: This only applies to a plain negative Mitzvah!

1. Do we say this even by a negative Mitzvah punishable by Kares?!

(c) Question #2: What is the source that a positive Mitzvah overrides a plain negative Mitzvah?