Previous daf

1)

(a) The most logical reason for saying 'Ein Av le'Mitzri' (which actually incorporates all Nochrim) is - because due to the fact that the Nochri women are very adulterous, we never really know who the fathers of their children are.

(b) Rava proves from the Beraisa on the previous Amud that this is not the case - because in the Seifa, the Tana exempts twins who were conceived before the Geirus and born afterwards from Chalitzah and Yibum (even though twins are created from the same Tipah and are therefore quite obviously conceived from the same father). The real reason for 'Ein Av le'Mitzri' therefore is - because the Torah declared their Zera Hefker, like that of horses (as we learned above in our Mishnah).

(c) We can know for sure who the Nochri's father is - if he was alone in prison together with his mother.

(d) Rava brings his proof from the Seifa of the Beraisa (when they were born *after* their parents converted), and not from the Reisha (when they were born *before* - from the fact that they are not Chayav because of Eishes Ach) - because there, the reason is because of 'Ger she'Nisgayer, ke'Katan she'Nolad Dami' (a principle which is not currently under discussion).

(a) Rebbi Yossi related the story of Niftayem the convert who married his maternal brother's wife. The Chachamim there ruled 'Ein Ishus le'Ger'. This cannot have been what they really said - because that would imply that the Kidushin of a Ger is not effective (which is inconceivable).

(b) What they actually said was 'Ein Isur Eishes Ach le'Ger'.

(c) We establish the relationship between Niftayem's brother and his wife - when they were married before he converted (but did not live together after the conversion).

(d) The Beraisa needs to tell us this - because, we might otherwise have thought that Chazal decreed when they were married before they converted on account of when they were married afterwards (when it is a case of Eishes Ach mi'd'Oraysa).

(a) A certain convert told ben Yosi'an the same thing in the name of Rebbi Akiva (as Rebbi Yossi said in the previous question). That case involves - seven brothers.

(b) He also cited a second ruling of Rebbi Akiva, where he inferred from the Pasuk "Vayehi D'var Hashem el Yonah *Sheinis* Leimor" - that Hashem only spoke to Yonah twice, but not a third time.

(c) The problem that we have with the timing of the convert's testimony is - that (as we learned above on Daf 77a.), any new ruling of a Talmid-Chacham is acceptable only as long as he issues it before it becomes practically applicable, but not afterwards, as appears to have been the case here.

(d) We give three answers to this question. The second answer is that in giving testimony, he cited a ruling from the past, which renders the ruling acceptable under all circumstances.

1. The first answer is - that the convert Talmid-Chacham did not quote Rebbi Akiva for the first time at that moment. In fact, he had already cited it before.
2. The third answer - that since he issued a second ruling together with this one, since he is believed regarding that ruling, he is believed on this one, too.

(a) In his second ruling, Rebbi Akiva stated that Yonah prophesied twice, but not three times. Ravina reconciles this with the Pasuk (concerning Yerav'am ben Yeho'ash) "Hu Heishiv es G'vul Yisrael ... Ka'asher Diber Hashem be'Yad Avdo Yonah ben Amitai" (which appears to be a third prophecy) - by restricting Rebbi Akiva's statement to prophesies concerning Ninvei (but that does not rule out additional prophesies concerning other issues).

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains the latter Pasuk allegorically. What the Pasuk means is - that just as the evil prophesy at the hand of Yonah was overturned from bad to good, so too, will Yisrael in times of Yerav'am ben Yeho'ash experience a change from good to bad.

5)

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa, explaining the Din of a Ger who was conceived she'Lo bi'Kedushah but born bi'Kedushah, elaborates on the statement 'Yesh Lo She'er ha'Eim ve'Ein Lo She'er ha'Av'. If he marries ...

1. ... his maternal sister, he says - he must divorce her.
2. ... his paternal sister - he may retain her.

(b) 'Achos ha'Av min ha'Eim, Yotzi, min ha'Av Yekayem. The reason for the stringent ruling in the former case is - because of a decree on account of Achoso mei'Imo (see also Tosfos DH 'Achos', and Mosaf Rashi throughout the Sugya).

(c) In the case of Achos ha'Eim min ha'Av ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir says 'Yotzi' - because there is one aspect of Eim. 2. ... the Chachamim say 'Yekayem' - because a paternal relationship is not similar to a maternal one.

(a) The Tana permits Eishes Achiv and Eishes Achi Aviv (even min ha'Eim) - because Chazal confined their decree (forbidding relations from before the conversion on account of after it) to blood-relationships, but did not extend it to relationships that result through marriage.

(b) 'u'Mutar be'Sha'ar Kol ha'Arayos' - comes to include his father's wife.

(c) We establish the Tana's ruling 'u'Mutar be'Eishes Achiv' - to pertain to the wife to whom his brother was married before he converted (as we explained earlier).

(a) If someone married a woman and her daughter when he was still a Nochri and then he converted - he is obligated to divorce one of them.

(b) When the Tana continues 'Lechatchilah Lo Yichnos' he is referring (not to the previous case, because, if he is obligated to divorce one of them, then it goes without saying that he is not permitted to marry her Lechatchilah, but) to the earlier cases in the Beraisa (those that comprise She'er ha'Av) where the Tana ruled 'Yekayem'.

(c) The Tana also cited a dispute whether he is permitted to marry his mother-in-law. This is connected with the dispute between Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva (discussed above on Daf 94b.) - where Rebbi Yishmael declared someone who married his mother-in-law after his wife's death Chayav S'reifah, whereas Rebbi Akiva exempted him from S'reifah.

(d) The Tana who forbade a convert to marry his mother-in-law holds like Rebbi Yishmael, who is strict by Chamoso (as we just explained); whereas the Tana who permits it holds like Rebbi Akiva, who is lenient (see Tosfos DH 'Kalash').

(a) The case of 'Chameish Nashim she'Nis'arvu V'ladoseihen' is - when the babies of five women become mixed-up, and each of them has another son whose identity is known.

(b) If the five sons who got mixed-up all died - four of the other sons make Chalitzah with one of the five Yevamos, and the fifth son may then perform Yibum. Then he, plus three of the four brothers make Chalitzah with the second Yevamah, and the remaining one may perform Yibum ... , and so on, until each of the brothers has performed Yibum with one of the Yevamos.

(c) It is imperative for the four brothers to make Chalitzah before the fifth brother performs Yibum - to ensure that when the brother performs Yibum, he does not contravene the La'av of Yevamah le'Shuk.

(d) It is preferable to follow the instructions of the Mishnah than for one brother to acquire all five Yevamos with Yibum after the other four have made Chalitzah - because in this way, it is just possible that each brother will perform the Mitzvah of Yibum with his Yevamah.

(a) The Tana in a Beraisa writes that if some of those who are not mixed-up are brothers and some of them are not, then those who are should perform Chalitzah and those who are not, Yibum. Rav Safra interprets this to mean - that if some of them are paternal brothers and some of them, maternal brothers, then the maternal brothers should perform Chalitzah, and the paternal ones, Yibum.

(b) In the event that some of them are Kohanim and the rest ...

1. ... Yisre'eilim - then the Kohanim should perform Chalitzah, and the Yisre'eilim, Yibum.
2. ... maternal brothers - both perform Chalitzah and not Yibum.