Previous daf

1)

(a) We just cited the Beraisa 'ha'Choletz li'Yevimto ve'Chazar ve'Kid'shah, u'Meis, Tzerichah Chalitzah min ha'Achin. Amad Echad min ha'Achin ve'Kid'shah, Ein Lah Alav K'lum'. The Seifa goes well with Resh Lakish, the Reisha does not, since, according to him, a Chalutzah whom the Chalutz or one of the brothers re-married ought not to require Chalitzah (as we just explained). Rav Ashi (who holds like Resh Lakish) resolves this problem by explaining 'the brothers' to mean Achin ha'Yilodim - meaning brothers who were born after the Kidushin.

(b) Brothers who were born after the Kidushin are permitted according to Rebbi Shimon (who is the author of this Beraisa), who permits Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo under similar circumstances.

(c) Ravina who holds like Rebbi Yochanan, explains the Reisha according to the Rabbanan (by Achin ha'Noladim). He answer Resh Lakish's Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan from the Seifa (cited at the end of 10a. - Why the Tana says 'Ein Lo Alav K'lum') - by establishing it by Achim ha'Yilodim, according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon, who are Asur on the Chalutzah with an Isur Kareis because of Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo.

(d) According to Rebbi Yochanan, one of the brothers who has relations with a Yevamah after his brother performed Yibum with her Tzarah, transgress the Asei of "Beis Achiv" - 'Bayis Echad Hu Boneh, ve'Eino Boneh Sh'nei Batim' (because a La'av that stems from an Asei, is an Asei).

(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, Tzaras Sotah - a woman who definitely commited adultery (with two witnesses), and whose husband then died is Patur from both Yibum and Chalitzah.

(b) The reason for this Halachah, in spite of the fact that she is only forbidden to her husband by a La'av - is the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Nisterah ve'Hi *Nitma'ah*" (which uses 'Tum'ah' comparing her to the Arayos, where it writes "Al Titam'u be'Chol Eileh").

(a) If, after hearing testimony that her husband had died, she remarries and her husband then appears, she is forbidden to both men. According to the Rabbanan, should they both subsequently die, she requires Chalitzah from the brother of each one. Rebbi Shimon (in Perek ha'Ishah Rabah) says ...

1. ... that she is permitted to perform Yibum or Chalitzah should her first husband die (because she is an Anusah, and we not penalize her).
2. ... that she also exempts her Tzarah from Yibum.

(b) We can infer from here, according to the Rabbanan - that the Tzarah of a Sotah can even perform Yibum (because they only disagree with Rebbi Shimon with regard to the Sotah herself, but not with regard to the Tzarah).

(c) Rav's own ruling, that Tzaras Sotah is considered an Ervah, refers to a Vaday Sotah, which the Torah specifically forbids, whereas the Beraisa is speaking about a Sotah de'Rabbanan (because min ha'Torah, a woman who marries with the Beis-Din's permission is permitted to her husband, and it is the Rabbanan who forbade her in order to force her to make doubly sure before marrying someone else, that her husband is really dead).

(d) This answer appears obvious. Nevertheless, Rav Chisda asked the Kashya - because of the principle that whatever the Rabbanan instituted, they gave the same rules as the equivalent d'Oraysa. Consequently, we would have thought that just like the Tzarah of a Sotah d'Oraysa is forbidden to the Yavam, so too should a Sotah de'Rabbanan be forbidden, and require only Chalitzah, but not Yibum.

(a) In the case of a regular Sotah, the Torah write the word "Nitme'ah" three times (once with a 'Vav') - once to forbid her to her husband (until she drinks the bitter water), once to forbid her to the adulterer and once to forbid her to eat Terumah.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa rules - that should her husband die before taking her to the Beis-Hamikdash, she requires Chalitzah.

(c) Rav who holds that, by a Sotah, there is no Chalitzah either speaks in the case of Sotah Vaday (as we explained earlier) - whereas the Beraisa is referring to a Safek Sotah.

5)

(a) The Torah writes by the La'av of Machzir Gerushaso in Ki Seitzei "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah". This come to ...

1. ... preclude, according to Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar quoting Rebbi Elazar - Machzir Gerushaso min ha'Eirusin.
2. ... include, according to the Chachamim, who do not differentiate between Machzir Gerushaso min ha'Nisu'in or min ha'Eirusin - Tzaras Sotah.

(b) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "ve'Haysah le'Ish Acher" - that it makes no difference whether the woman married the second man or whether she was only betrothed to him, either way, she is forbidden to return to her first husband when the second one dies.

(c) According to Rav, who just argued that a Safek Sotah must make Chalitzah because it is only by a Sotah Vaday that the Torah mentions Tum'ah - will explain that, when the Rabbanan learned a La'av by Sotah *she'Nisterah* from "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah", they meant Sotah *she'Niv'elah*, and they only said Sotah *she'Nisterah*, in order to speak modestly.

(d) True, the Torah has already written "ve'Nisterah ve'Hi Nitma'ah" - it nevertheless found it necessary to add the Pasuk "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah" - in order to make it a La'av ("Lo Yuchal ... ") which is not mentioned by the Pasuk "ve'Nisterah ve'Hi Nitma'ah".

(a) Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar states that the Torah writes by Machzir Gerushaso 'Havayah ve'Ishus' - meaning that the Torah writes by her "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah le'Ish Acher", and that is when there is a La'av on the husband ("Lo Yuchal ... ").

(b) But not he extrapolates - in the case of a Sotah, whom the husband has not divorved (according to the text of the Gra - he precludes a divorcee who committed adultery without actually marrying the adulterer - in which case, her husband is permitted to remarry her).

(a) Rav Yehudah asked Rav Sheishes whether, according to the Rabbanan, the brother of a Machzir Gerushaso mi'she'Niseis is Chayav to perform Yibum with her Tzarah. This is not a She'eilah according to Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar - because, in his opinion, since Tum'ah is written by Machzir Gerushaso, it is obvious that her Tzarah has the same Din as she has (like a Rzaras Ervah).

(b) Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar will then infer from the Pasuk "To'eivah *Hi"* - "Hi" To'eivah, ve'Ein Banehah To'eivin (thereby permitting her daughter to marry a Kohen).

(c) According to the Rabbanan, why might "To'eivah Hi" apply to Machzir Gerushaso, despite the fact that, in their opinion, it refers to a Sotah (Vaday) - because of the principle 'Ein Makra Yotz'ei Miydei Peshuto'.

(d) On the other hand, it might not - because of the possibility 'Keivan de'Iyakar Iyakar' ('Once the Torah takes something out of its simple context, it is out').

(a) Alternatively, the She'eilah is confined to Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar, but, according to the Rabbanan, it is obvious that 'Keivan de'I'akar I'akar. The She'eilah will then be - whether "To'eivah *Hi* comes to preclude his children (as we learned above) or his wife.

(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from a Mishnah in ha'Choletz: 'Haysah Achas Kesheirah, ve'Achas Pesulah, Im Hayah Choletz, Choletz li'Pesulah, ve'Im Hayah Meyabem, Meyabem li'Kesheirah'. We initially assume that Kesheirah and Pesulah cannot mean le'Alma (to others, but not to him) - because, if the two women are permitted to him, then why should he not perform wither Yibum or Chalitzah with whichever one he wishes?

(c) In that case - the Beraisa must mean that one of the women is permitted to him, the other is forbidden, because of Machzir Gerushaso, from which we can see that Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso is permitted (in spite of the fact that the Torah writes Tum'ah by Machzir Gerushaso).

(d) The Beraisa cannot be referring to the Tzarah of an ordinary Chayvei La'avin such as a Gerushah li'Kohen Hedyot - because that would not a Chidush (seeing as the Torah has not compared her to Chayvei Kerisus by writing 'Tum'ah by her).

(a) We refute this proof however, by re-instating the Mishnah by Kesheirah and Pesulah le'Alma, dismissing our initial objection by establishing it like Rav Yosef - who says that Rebbi is teaching us in this Mishnah that a person should not pour out the water of his pit, should others have a need for them. What he meant is that, since it makes no difference to him which woman he is Choletz, he should rather do so with the woman who is Pesulah, thereby leaving the Kesheirah free to marry a Kohen; whereas had he been Choletz the Kesheirah, both women would have been forbidden to a Kohen.

(b) So we try to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa 'ha'Machzir Gerushaso mi'she'Niseis Hi ve'Tzarasah Choletzes'. This is obviously a printing error. We refute the suggested text 'O Hi O Tzarasah Choletzes' (which would resolve our She'eilah one way) - by saying that, since the text must be amended anyway, we may as well amend it to read 'Hi Choletzes, Tzarasah, O Choletzes O Misyabemes' (which would resolve it the other way).

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan posed the same She'eilah as Rav Yehudah (whether Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso is subject to Yibum or not). He did not ask the same She'eilah regarding the Gerushah herself - because he considered it obvious that, if she is forbidden to her former husband, to whom she was previously *permitted*, she should certainly be forbidden to the Yavam, to whom she was *not*.

(b) The She'eilah, according to him - is whether the Kal va'Chomer is strong enough to push away the Tzarah as well, or not.

(c) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Rebbi Yochanan posed the She'eilah regarding the Gerushah herself - whether we can apply the above 'Kal va'Chomer' in face of the Mitzvah of Yibum, or not.

(d) He did not pose it with regard to the Tzarah - because it was obvious to him that the 'Kal va'Chomer' is not strong enough to forbid the Tzarah, too.