Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan (who holds that Beis Shamai actually *practiced* their opinion, with regard to Tzaras Ervah) concurs with Shmuel - Resh Lakish (in whose opinion they did *not*) concurs with Rav?

(b) If this Machlokes occurred *before* the Bas Kol was heard, the reason of Resh Lakish and Rav will be - because Beis Hillel was in the majority.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan and Shmuel, who say that they *did* - maintain that although Beis Hillel were in the majority, we only follow the majority when the disputants are equal, but not here, where Beis Shamai were sharper than Beis Hillel.

(d) If, on the other hand, it occurred *after* the Bas Kol, we can better understand Resh Lakish and Rav - Rebbi Yochanan and Shmuel's reason (that Beis Shamai practiced their opinion, in spite of the Bas Kol) will then be based on the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua, who says that we do not follow a Bas Kol, because the Torah is no longer in heaven.

(a) Rava rejects Abaye's contention that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, there is no problem of "Lo Sisgodedu", because this is a case of two Batei Dinim in *two* towns - because how will we then explain Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, who were like two Batei-Dinim in *one* town, in spite of which each of them followed his own opinion?

(b) Rava therefore resolves the problem - by confining "Lo Sisgodedu* to *one* Beis-Din in *one* town, but *two* Batei-Dinim in one town are not subject to "Lo Sisgodedu".

(c) In Rebbi Eliezer's town they would cut wood to produce charcoal to make a knife for performing the B'ris Milah on Shabbos - because Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Machshirei Mitzvah Dochin Shabbos ke'Mitzvah Atzmah'.

(d) In Rebbi Akiva's town this was not done, because Rebbi Akiva holds 'Kol Melachah she'Efshar La'asosah me'Erev Shabbos, Ein Docheh es ha'Shabbos.' In spite of the fact that Rebbi Akiva lived in a different town than Rebbi Eliezer (or was at least on a different Beis-Din), and we just established that "Lo Sisgodedu" does not apply to two Batei-Din in one town, and certainly not in two towns - we nevertheless ask from the K'lal of "Lo Sisgodedu", because we might have thought that, due to the Chumra of Shabbos, we would not even permit two groups in Hilchos Shabbos in two towns or in two Batei-Din in one town (see Ritva).

(a) When Rebbi Avahu was in Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's territory, he moved a lamp that had burned that Shabbos, after it went out, because he sided with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who held like Rebbi Shimon, who does not hold of most kinds of Muktzah. The reason that he did not move it in Rebbi Yochanan territory was - out of deference to Rebbi Yochanan.

(b) He was not concerned that his Shamash might not realize the difference, and move a lamp in Rebbi Yochanan's territory - because he explained the issue to him.

(c) We learn from a Beraisa that neither did Beis Shamai refrain from marrying Beis Hillel's daughters, nor vice-versa. Even assuming that Beis Shamai practiced their opinion, there was no problem with ...

1. ... Beis Shamai marrying Beis Hillel's daughters - because a Yevamah le'Shuk without Chalitzah is only a Chayvei La'avin, on whom Kidushin is effective.
2. ... Beis Hillel marrying the daughters of Beis Shamai, considering the possibility of marrying a Mamzeres (according to the Gemara's conclusion) - because Beis Shamai would inform Beis Hillel if there was any problem, in which case they would refrain from marrying the woman concerned.

(d) Beis Shamai's daughters would be Mamzeiros according to Beis Hillel - because they performed Yibum with Tzaros Ervah, who are Chayvei K'risus according to Beis Hillel.

5)

(a) We prove that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel must have informed each other, from the Seifa of the Mishnah, where they did not refrain from lending one another their household vessels. This proof is only valid from the case of Beis Hillel borrowing Beis Shamai's vessels, and not vice-versa - because regarding Tum'ah, it is Beis Hillel who are stricter than Beis Shamai. Consequently, Beis Shamai's vessels were Tamei according to Beis Hillel, whereas Beis Hillel's, were Tahor according to Beis Shamai.

(b) The proof that they informed each other is a better one from the case of borrowing each other's vessels, than the one from Tzaras Ervah - because in the latter case they would have known even without being told, since, due the fact that a Tzaras Ervah has a Kol, everyone would have known about it.

6)

(a) We quoted Rebbi Elazar, who says that even though Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over Tzaras Ervah, they agree that 'Ein Mamzer Ela mi'Mi she'Isur Ervah ve'Anush Kareis'. He cannot be referring to ...

1. ... Beis Shamai, who concedes to Beis Hillel (according to our initial contention) - because it is obvious that Beis Shamai will not consider the child of a Tzaras Ervah le'Shuk without Chalitzah a Mamzer, since he is only the product of a Chayvei La'avin.
2. ... Beis Hillel, who concedes to Beis Shamai - because a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Yibum is a Chiyuv Kareis, so why should the child *not* be a Mamzer.

(b) We conclude that he is referring to Beis Shamai, who concedes to Beis Hillel that the child of a Tzaras Ervah le'Shuk without Chalitzah is not a Mamzer - to preclude from Rebbi Akiva, who holds that the child of a Chayvei La'avin is a Mamzer.

(a) The Beraisa cites various Machlokos of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai that concern the current issue under discussion: Tzaros, Achyos, Get Yashan, Safek Eishes Ish, ha'Megaresh es Ishto ve'Lanah Imo be'Pundeki. The case of ...

1. ... Safek Eishes Ish (according to Rashi's first explanation) is - that of Miy'un (because should she make Miy'un, she will uproot the Kidushin retroactively, so her marriage is always a Safek): Beis Shamai maintain that only an Arusah can make Miy'un, whereas Beis Hillel maintain that a Nesu'ah can, too (see 107a. where they also argue over a number of other issues regarding Miy'un).
2. ... ha'Megaresh es Ishto ve'Lanah Imo be'Pundeki - is when a man, after divorcing his wife, is seen by witnesses entering a guest-house with her to stay overnight.

(b) Beis Shamai maintain that she does not require a second Get, because the witnesses who saw them going in together, are *not* considered witnesses that there was a Bi'ah; whereas according to Beis Hillel, they *are*, in which case we assume that he has betrothed her, because a person does not perform Bi'ah immorally, if it can be done legally.

(a) The final case concerns the amount that is required for Kidushin. The minimum amount according to ...

1. ... Beis Shamai - is one (silver) Dinar (the equivalent of 192 [copper] P'rutos) either in money or to the value of.
2. ... Beis Hillel - one P'rutah.

(b) The Beraisa learns from the fact that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel would marry women from each other's camp - in spite of the Machlokes by Tzaros - that love and friendship existed between them.

(c) This conforms with the Pasuk - "ha'Emes ve'ha'Shalom Ahavu".

(a) Rebbi Shimon says 'Nimne'u min ha'Vaday ve'Lo Nimne'u min ha'Safek'. We initially interpret 'Safek' to mean Safek Isur, and it refers to the case of 'Megaresh ve'Lanah Imo be'Pundeki'.

(b) We prove from the fact that they refrained from cases of Vaday according to Rebbi Shimon) that they must have practiced their respective opinions. The problem with the fact that Beis Shamai refrained from the Vaday of Beis Hillel is - that Yevamah le'Shuk is only a Chayvei La'avin, and the children of Chayvei La'avin are not Mamzeirim?

(c) It was not the *children* of the Tzaros ha'Bas whom Beis Shamai refrained from marrying, but the Tzaros ha'Bas themselves, who had married le'Shuk without performing Chalitzah.

(d) When Rebbi Shimon said above that they did not refrain from Safek - he meant that they did not refrain from 'S'tam', meaning whenever