Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DOUBTFUL CASES OF YIBUM AND CHALITZAH

(a) Ravina: You teach what Rava said at night - but in the morning, he retracted.
(b) Rav Mesharshiya: You permitted it! If only you would permit Chelev!
(c) Question (Rav Mesharshiya): Regarding a man that married a woman pregnant or nursing a baby from another man - did we enact a leniency for a Kohen (that he need not give her a Get, so she will be permitted to him when she finishes nursing)?
(d) Answer (Ravina): No - this is not comparable!

1. By the doubtfully viable child - Chachamim argue on R. Shimon Ben Gamliel, and say that we assume a baby viable even if he dies within 30 days.

i. Since there is no solution for a Kohen to keep his wife if she does Chalitzah, we rely on Chachamim.

2. Here, who can we go as?

i. Not as R. Meir - he says, he divorces her and may not remarry!
ii. Not as Chachamim - they said, he must give her a Get!

(e) A man engaged a Yevamah within 3 months and fled. Rav Acha and Rafram argued. One said, we put him in Niduy (until he divorces her); the other says, it suffices that he fled.

1. A case came up; Rafram said, it suffices that he fled.

(f) (Mishnah): If we are in doubt if it is a 9 month baby from the deceased ...
(g) Question (Rava): Why don't we go after most women, who give birth after 9 months?
(h) Answer (Rav Nachman): Our women give birth after 7 months.

1. Question: Are your women the majority of the world?!

(i) Clarification: Most women give birth after 9 months, a minority after 7. All that give birth after 9, the mother is noticeably pregnant after 1/3 of the term. Since this woman was not, this weakens the majority (that give birth after 9).
(j) Objection: If all are noticeably pregnant after 1/3 - this baby is certainly not from the deceased!
(k) Correction: *Most* that give birth after 9, the mother is noticeably pregnant after 1/3 of the term. Since this woman was not, this weakens the majority.

(a) (Beraisa): The 1st child (i.e. the one in doubt) is fit to be Kohen Gadol, the second (i.e. future children from the Yavam) is a doubtful Mamzer; R. Elazar Ben Yakov says, he is not a Mamzer from Safek.
(b) Question: What are they saying?
(c) Answer #1(Abaye): The 1st child is fit to be Kohen Gadol, the second is a doubtful Mamzer, and may not marry a Mamzeres; R. Elazar Ben Yakov says, he is not a doubtful Mamzer, rather a certain Mamzer, and is permitted to marry a Mamzeres.
(d) Answer #2(Rava): The 1st child is fit to be Kohen Gadol, the second is a definite Mamzer from Safek, and may marry a Mamzeres; R. Elazar Ben Yakov says, a doubt does not make a certain Mamzer - the child is forbidden to marry a Mamzeres.

1. Abaye and Rava argue on R. Elazar's teaching.
2. (Mishnah - R. Elazar): Definite Mamzerim may marry definite Mamzerim; doubtful Mamzerim may not marry doubtful nor definite Mamzerim;
3. The doubtful cases are: A child born to an unmarried woman; a child found abandoned in the street; Kusim.

(e) (Rav Yehudah citing Rav): The law is as R. Elazar.
(f) Question (Shmuel): Hillel taught - 10 lineages came up from Bavel - Kohanim, Levi'im, Yisraelim, Chalalim, converts, freed slaves, Mamzerim, Nesinim, Shetukim, and Asufim - all are allowed to intermarry!

1. How can you say the law is as R. Elazar?

(g) Abaye holds as Shmuel, that the law is as Hillel; he establishes R. Elazar Ben Yakov as the law, to avoid a contradiction (since the law is always as R. Elazar Ben Yakov);
(h) Rava holds as Rav, the law is as R. Elazar; he establishes R. Elazar to say as the law, to avoid a contradiction.

(i) (Abaye): The following proves that R. Elazar Ben Yakov treats doubtful Mamzerim as certain.

1. (Beraisa - R. Elazar Ben Yakov): A man had relations with many women, and doesn't know which; or a woman that has relations with many men, and doesn't know from which she became pregnant - a man might come to marry his daughter, or siblings might marry, and the world is full of Mamzerim - "The land will be filled with Zimah (lewdness)";

(j) Rejection (Rava): "ZiMaH" - Zo Mah Hi (what is this? - they are considered *doubtful* Mamzerim).
(k) (Continuation of Beraisa): R. Elazar Ben Yakov said even more - a man should not marry women in different cities, lest his children marry each other.
(l) Question: But Rav, when he traveled to another city, would request to marry a woman for that day! Also, Rav Nachman!
(m) Answer: Great Chachamim are not subject to this concern, since they are known.
(n) Question: But Rava said, a woman must wait 7 clean days after her husband asked to have Nisu'in (how could Rav and Rav Nachman marry a woman the same day)!
(o) Answer #1: The sent messengers a week before.
(p) Answer #2: They would only be in seclusion with the women (but would not have relations).

1. One who has bread in his basket is unlike someone that does not.

(q) (Beraisa - R. Elazar Ben Yakov): A man should not marry a woman, intending to divorce her - "Do not plot evil on your companion, when he sits confident with you."

(a) The child (who may be a 9-month baby from the deceased, or a 7 month baby from the Yavam) and the Yavam are coming to inherit the deceased.

1. Child: I am the deceased's son, I inherit him!
2. Yavam: No, you are my son, I inherit him!
3. The property is in Safek; they divide it.

(b) The child and the children of the Yavam are coming to inherit the property of the deceased.

1. Child: I am the deceased's son, I inherit him alone!
2. Children of the Yavam: No, you are my brother, you only have a portion with us!
3. (Chachamim): This case resembles our Mishnah.

i. (Mishnah): (A child unsure which of two men is his father) does not inherit them, they inherit him.
ii. The Vadai children (known to be from the deceased) tell him, bring a proof that you are his son, and receive; here, he tells the Yavam's children, bring a proof (that I am not the son of the deceased) and receive.

4. R. Mesharshiya: The cases are different! In that Mishnah, they certainly inherit, he is unsure - a Safek does not take from Vadai (one who is sure); here, all are Safek (even though the Safek certainly inherits something, he is unsure why he inherits).

i. It does resemble this case: The Safek child and children of the Yavam come to inherit the Yavam. The Yavam's children say bring a proof that you are our brother and receive.

(c) The Safek child and children of the Yavam come to inherit the Yavam, after the Yavam divided the property of the dead brother with the Safek.

1. The Yavam's children: Bring a proof that you are our brother and receive a share.
2. Safek: Whichever way you will say!

i. If I am your brother - give me a share with you!
ii. If I am the son of the deceased - give me the half of his property your father took!

(d) Opinion #1 (R. Aba): The previous ruling (that the Yavam gets half the property of the deceased) stands (and the Safek cannot say, if you say I am the deceased's son, return that property).
(e) Opinion #2 (R. Yirmiyah): The previous ruling is reopened (and the Safek's claim is honored).
(f) Suggestion: R. Aba and R. Yirmiyah argue as Admon and Chachamim.

1. (Mishnah): One who went overseas, and the path to his field was lost. Admon says, he receives a short path to his field; Chachamim say, he must pay whatever his neighbor charges for a path, or may fly to his field (i.e. he cannot get to his field).
2. Question: We understand Admon - why do Chachamim argue?
3. Answer (Rav Yehudah): The case is, he was surrounded by 4 neighbors on the 4 sides of his field.
4. Question: If so, what is Admon's reasoning?
5. Answer (Rava): If all 4 neighbors have their own claims, or if all bought from one who used to own all the surrounding property, all agree that they can push him off.

i. They argue when 1 person bought the surrounding property from 4.
ii. Admon says, in any case the path to his field is by the buyer!
iii. Chachamim say, the neighbor says, be silent - if you protest, I will return the deeds to the original owners, and you will be unable to force them to give you a path.

6. Suggestion: R. Aba is as Admon, and R. Yirmiyah as Chachamim.
7. Rejection: R. Aba can go as Chachamim.

i. Admon only said his law there because the man definitely had a path by the neighbor.