Previous daf

1)

(a) We have just seen in the Beraisa, that Achos Ishto me'Imah is forbidden, no less than me'Avihah. We cannot learn ...

1. ... this from Achoso (rather than to learn from Dodaso that she is permitted) - because Dodaso, like Achos Ishto, becomes forbidden through Kidushin, as opposed to Achoso, who comes naturally.
2. ... Dodaso that she is permitted (rather than from Achoso that she is forbidden) - because Achoso, like Achos Ishto, is *his* relative, as opposed to Dodaso, who is a relative of *his father*.

(b) We actually learn Achos Ishto me'Imah - from Eishes Ach, which is both his relative and becomes forbidden through Kidushin.

(c) We cannot learn Eishes Ach itself from ...

1. ... Dodaso (rather than from Achoso) - because it is better to learn a relationship that is the result of Kidushin from such a relationship (rather than from a personal one).
2. ... Achoso (rather than from Dodaso) - because it is better to learn one's own relation from one's own relation, rather than from one's father's.

(d) So, having already written "Ervas Eishes Achicha Lo Segaleh" - we learn from "Ervas Achicha Hi" that one is Chayav for one's maternal brother's wife as well as for one's paternal one.

(a) We do not need a Pasuk to teach us that Eishes Ach who has no children, and whom his brother divorced, is forbidden (and is even Chayav Kareis), because the Torah writes "Nidah Hi" (like Rav Huna on the previous Amud). Neither do we need "Ervas Achicha Hi" to teach us that if his brother died leaving children, his widow is forbidden to him - we know that from the fact that the Torah needs to permit her when there are no children.

(b) The Pasuk "Ervas Achiv Gilah" comes to preclude any one of three contentions, in a case where there are children: that the Yevamah is permitted to the Yavam as well as to the Shuk; that although the Yavam has no Mitzvah of Yibum with his deceased brother's wife, he is nevertheless permitted to marry her; that should he marry her, he contravenes a La'av ha'Ba mi'Ch'lal Asei (which is only an Asei). "Ervas Achiv Gilah" comes to teach us that, where the brother leaves over children, the Chiyuv Kareis of Eishes Achiv remains in full force.

(a) We suggest that Eishes Av min ha'Eim should be permitted after his brother's death like Eishes Ach min ha'Av. The 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Achvah" "Achvah" mi'B'nei Ya'akov - will only teach us that there is no Mitzvah of Yibum, but not that there is a prohibition.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Ervas Achicha *Hi* - that Eishes Ach min ha'Eim remains forbidden after the death of her husband.

(a) Seeing as we learn the Chiyuv Kareis by all the Arayos from Hekeisha de'Rebbi Yonah, the Torah writes Kareis by his sister, according to Rebbi Yochanan, to teach us that one is Chayav for each one - meaning that if one were to commit all the cases of incest say, by mistake, without realizing in the middle that it was forbidden, he would be Chayav a Chatas for each individual act.

(b) We learn all the other cases from Achoso - because it is a case of 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Ch'lal, ve'Yatza, Lo le'Lamed al Atzmo Yatza, Ela le'Lamed al ha'K'lal Kulo Yatza'.

(c) According to Rebbi Yitzchak, who learns that one is Chayav a separate Chatas for each Ervah from "ve'el *Ishah* be'Nidas Tum'asah" - the Torah writes Kareis by his sister to teach us that Chayvei K'risus receive Kareis, and not Malkos.

(a) "Aririm" means - to die without children.

(b) The Torah writes "Aririm Yamusu" - to teach us that even the children that he had before committing this sin, will die before him; and it writes "Aririm Yihyu" - to teach us that even the children that will be born to him after it, will die before him, too.

(a) Someone who has relations with a Shifchah - transgresses the La'av of "Lo Yiheyeh Kadeish".

(b) A Shifchah Charufah - is a Shifchah Kena'anis who is 'betrothed' to an Eved Ivri, to whom he is permitted (see Rashi in Kedoshim [19:20].

(c) The Lashon "Shichvas Zera" by Shifchah Charufah teaches us - that the Eved is only Chayav if he completes the Bi'ah (see 8a.), but that other Chayvei La'avin are Chayav even for Ha'ara'ah.

(d) We cannot learn from the fact that the Torah writes Ha'ara'ah by Chayvei Kareis, that by Chayvei La'avin, one is not Chayav - because if so, why did the Torah need to write "Shichvas Zera" by Shifchah Charufah?

7)

(a) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...

1. ... "Kichah" "Kichah" (Chayvei La'avin di'Kehunah from Chayvei K'risus) - that by La'avin di'Kehunah, one also transgresses the respective La'av through Ha'ara'ah.
2. ... "Bi'ah" "Bi'ah" (Chayvei Asei from Chayvei La'avin) - that one transgresses Chayvei Asei through Ha'ara'ah, too.

(b) We know that Ha'ara'ah is Asur by a Yevamah le'Shuk - because those who consider a Yevamah le'Shuk a La'av, learn it from "Shichvas Zera" written by Shifchah Charufah, and according to those who consider it an Asei - learn it from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Bi'ah" "Bi'ah".

(c) A Yevamah le'Shuk might be ...

1. ... a Lo Sa'aseh - from the Pasuk " Lo Sihyeh Eishes ha'Meis ha'Chutzah ... ".
2. ... an Asei - from the Pasuk Yevamah Yavo Alehah" (and the previous Pasuk comes to teach us that Kidushin does not take effect).

(d) We know that ...

1. ... a Yavam acquires his Yevamah through Ha'ara'ah - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Bi'ah" ["Yevamah Yavo Eilehah"] "Bi'ah" (from Chayvei La'avin ["Lo Yavo Mamzer"] - Ki Seitzei).
2. ... if a man betroths a woman through Ha'ara'ah, he acquires her - from "Kichah" ["Ki Yikach Ish Ishah u'Be'alah" - Ki Seitzei] "Kichah" from Chayvei K'risus ["ve'Ish Ki Yikach es Achosah"].

(a) The Torah writes "Shichvas-Zera" by Shifchah-Charufah, Eishes-Ish and Sotah. We have already explained why it does so by Shifchah Charufah. It comes to exempt the man from a Korban Asham (implying that the woman, whose punishment is Malkos, gets punished even for Ha'ara'ah).

(b) The Torah writes "Shichvas-Zera" ...

1. ... by Eishes-Ish (according to those who hold that one is Chayav even for Bi'ah with an Eiver Meis) - to preclude someone who performs Bi'ah with her after her death (because, seeing as she is still referred to as "She'eiro'', we may have thought that he will be Chayav).
2. ... by Sotah - to preclude 'Bi'ah Derech Eivarim' (where he fondles her and performs Bi'ah over her body).

(c) Rav Sheishes contends that the Pasuk comes to preclude where he warned her not to perform an unnatural Bi'ah with the suspect (Rashi's second explanation, with which Tosfos DH 'le'she'Kinei' agrees). Rava refutes ...

1. ... Rav Sheishes' contention however - on the grounds that the Torah has already written "Mishkevei Ishah", giving an unnatural Bi'ah the same Din as a natural one in this regard.
2. ... Abaye's rejection of his own explanation (that it comes to preclude 'Derech Eivarim', on the grounds that this is not sufficient cause to make her a Sotah) - because we might otherwise have thought that seeing as the Torah contends with the husband's Hakpadah (strict concern), his warning to that effect will obligate her.

(d) We reject Abaye's contention, that it comes to preclude when her husband warned her against the Neshikah of the adulterer (meaning when he performs Bi'ah by merely touching the woman but without penetration - as we shall soon see), on the grounds that, according to one opinion, that is considered Ha'ara'ah (as we shall now see).

(a) Shmuel proves that Neshikah is called Ha'ara'ah, with a Mashal - to a man who, when placing his finger on his mouth, is bound to press it.

(b) When Rabah bar bar Chanah came from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel - he quoted Rebbi Yochanan, who defined G'mar Bi'ah regarding Shifchah Charufah, as Hachnasas Atarah (slight penetration).

(c) He explains the Beraisa, which defines Shichvas-Zera as Meiruk (meaning that he injects seed) - to mean Meiruk Atarah (the insertion of the crown [top section] of the Milah).

(d) Rabah bar bar Chanah defines Ha'ara'ah - as Neshikah.

(a) When Rav Dimi arrived in Bavel, he quoted Yochanan who defined Ha'ara'ah as Hachnasas Atarah. When they told him that Rabah bar bar Chanah said otherwise, he retorted - that either Rabah bar bar Chanah was lying or he was.

(b) When Ravin arrived in Bavel, he too, quoted Rebbi Yochanan as defining Ha'ara'ah as Hachnasas Atarah. Rav Dimi and Ravin definitely disagree with Rabah bar bar Chanah. It does not necessarily follow however, that they also disagree with Shmuel, who holds that Neshikah is called Ha'ara'ah - because perhaps they hold that Ha'ara'ah comprises both.

(c) Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah also arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael. In his opinion, Rebbi Yochanan defined Ha'ara'ah as Hachnasas Atarah - and G'mar Bi'ah, as G'mar Bi'ah.

(d) It is not possible to reconcile Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah with Shmuel (that Neshikah is also included in Ha'ara'ah) like we did Rav Dimi and Ravin - because he specifically says that anything less than Hachnasas Atarah, is considered mere Neshikah, for which one is Patur.