Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) FACTIONS IN YISRAEL

(a) Answer (Reish Lakish): Beis Shamai did not follow their own teachings.
(b) (R. Yochanan): Beis Shamai did follow their own teachings.
(c) Rav and Shmuel also argued on this; Rav says that Beis Shamai did not follow their own teachings, Shmuel says that they did.
(d) Question: When are we talking about?

1. Suggestion #1: If before the Heavenly voice came - why would they not do as their teachings?
2. Suggestion #2: If after the Heavenly voice - why would they do as their teachings?
3. We can answer either way.
4. We can say the argument is before the voice - Beis Hilel was the majority.

i. The opinion that Beis Shamai followed their own teachings says that since they were sharper, we do not follow the majority.

5. We can say the argument is after the voice.

i. The opinion that Beis Shamai followed their own teachings is as R. Yehoshua, who says that we do not heed Heavenly voices.

(e) Question: According to the opinion that Beis Shamai followed their own teachings, this transgresses "Do not have factions"!
(f) Answer #1 (Abaye): The prohibition only applies to 2 Beis Dins in 1 city, one rules as Beis Shamai and 1 as Beis Hilel.

1. If Beis Dins in different cities rule differently, it is not a problem.

(g) Objection (Rava): But Beis Shamai and Beis Hilel are as opposing Beis Dins in the same city!
(h) Answer #2 (Rava): The prohibition is when a Beis Din in one city has half its judges ruling as Beis Shamai, and half as Beis Hilel.

1. 2 Beis Dins in one city is not a problem.

(a) Question (Beraisa): In R. Eliezer's region, they would cut trees on Shabbos to make a knife for circumcision; in R. Yosi ha'Galili's region they ate fowl with milk.

1. Trees were cut in R. Eliezer's region, but not in R. Akiva's.
2. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): Any labor which can be done before Shabbos is not permitted on Shabbos (for the sake of circumcision).

(b) Objection: This is no question - we said, different regions may conduct differently!

1. Question: The one that asked the question - what did he think?
2. Answer: Because Shabbos is so stringent, it is as one place (all places must conduct the same way).

(c) When R. Avahu would visit R. Yehoshua Ben Levi's region he would move a lamp on Shabbos; when in R. Yochanan's region, he would not.
(d) Objection: This is no proof - we have said, different regions may conduct differently!
(e) Response: The question is, how could R. Avahu be inconsistent!
(f) Answer: He really holds as R. Yehoshua Ben Levi; when in R. Yochanan's area, he conducted stringently to show honor to R. Yochanan.

1. Question: But he should be concerned that his servant will not know this!
2. Answer: He told his servant.

(a) (Beraisa): Even though these prohibit and these permit, Beis Shamai married women of Beis Hilel and vice-versa.

1. If Beis Shamai did not follow their own teachings, we understand how the could intermarry.
2. Question: If Beis Shamai followed their own teachings, how could they intermarry? (Beis Shamai says that Tzaras Ervah does Yibum or Chalitzah; Beis Hilel says that she marries a stranger without either).

i. We understand that Beis Shamai could marry women of Beis Hilel - Beis Shamai view the children of Tzaras Ervah (that conducted as Beis Hilel) as children of Chaivei Lavin, and it is permitted to marry them.
ii. Question: How could Beis Hilel marry women of Beis Shamai - Beis Hilel say that Tzaras Ervah that does Yibum gets Kares, and the children are Mamzerim!

3. Suggestion: Perhaps the Tana says that Arayos of Kares do not make Mamzerim.
4. Rejection: R. Elazar says, even though Beis Shamai and Beis Hilel argue regarding Tzaros, they agree that Mamzerim only come from Arayos punishable by Kares!
5. Suggestion: We must conclude, Beis Shamai did not follow their own teachings.

(b) Rejection: Really, they did - members of each school would inform the other if there had been cases of Tzaras Ervah in the family, and they would not intermarry in such cases.

1. The end of the Beraisa supports this.
2. (End of Beraisa): In spite of all the disputes on laws of purity, members of each school would rely on the purity of vessels of the other school.

3. This is understandable if we say that they would inform each other.
4. Question: If they did not inform each other - how could they rely on each other?

i. (The text of Tosfos) We understand that Beis Hilel could rely on Beis Shamai - what Beis Hilel says is pure, Beis Shamai say is impure.
ii. How could Beis Shamai rely on Beis Hilel - what Beis Hilel consider pure, s say is impure!
iii. We conclude, they must have informed each other.

5. Question: Why is this a better proof than saying that they intermarried?
6. Answer: We might have thought that Tzaros become known (but they did not rely on informing each other).

(c) (R. Elazar): Even though Beis Shamai and Beis Hilel argue regarding Tzaros, they agree that Mamzerim only come from Arayos punishable by Kares.
(d) Question: Who admit to who?

1. Suggestion: if Beis Shamai admit to Beis Hilel - Tzaras Ervah that married without Yibum or Chalitzah is only Chaivei Lavin (to Beis Shamai), obviously the children are not Mamzerim!
2. Rather, Beis Hilel admit to Beis Shamai - but Tzaras Ervah that do Yibum are Chaivei Krisus (and the children are Mamzerim)!

(e) Answer: Really, Beis Shamai admit to Beis Hilel - R. Elazar comes to exclude the opinion of R. Akiva, who says that the children of Chaivei Lavin are Mamzerim.
(f) (Beraisa): Even though Beis Shamai and Beis Hilel argued regarding Tzaros, sisters, predated divorce documents, a doubtful married woman, a man that divorced his wife and spent the night with her in an inn, something worth a Prutah, Beis Shamai did not refrain from marrying women of Beis Hilel, and vice-versa, to show that they conducted with dearness and friendship to each other - "Truth and peace they loved";
(g) R. Shimon: They would refrain when certain (that the other school had acted in a way which is now prohibited to them), but not when unsure.

1. If we say that Beis Shamai followed their own teachings - we understand why they refrained.
2. Question: If they did not follow their own teachings - why did they refrain?
3. Counter-question: Is this logical? Granted that they followed their own teachings - Beis Hilel refrained from women of Beis Shamai, since they descend from Chaivei Krisus - but why did Beis Shamai refrain from women of Beis Hilel, who are children of Chaivei Lavin, and are permitted!
4. Answer: As Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak said (elsewhere) - they would refrain from marrying the Tzarah herself.

(h) Question: Why did they refrain only from certain problems - even doubtful problems are forbidden!
(i) Correction: Say, they didn't refrain from *unspecified* cases - they would inform each other when there was a problem.
(j) Question: This comes to teach that they conducted with dearness and friendship to each other - we learned this in the beginning of the Beraisa!
(k) Answer: The entire Beraisa is R. Shimon.
(l) (Beraisa - R. Yochanan Ben Nuri): How should we conduct (by Tzaras Ervah)? If we conduct as Beis Shamai (and allow Yibum) - the child is a Mamzer according to Beis Hilel;
(m) If we do as Beis Hilel - the child is blemished according to Beis Shamai.
(n) Let us enact that the Tzarah should do Chalitzah and not Yibum.