ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 21
YEVAMOS 21 (12 Teves) - dedicated by Joseph and Aviva Hoch in memory of
Kaila bas ha'Chaver Moshe Mordechai.
(a) Rava learns from the Pasuk "Ki es Kol ha'To'eivos ha'Eil" - implying
that these cases of incest are serious sins - and that there are other sins
that are less (Sh'niyos).
(b) Rebbi Levi learns from the fact that the Torah writes "Eil" by Arayos
and "Eileh" by the sin of Midos ("Ki To'avas Hashem Elokecha Kol Oseh Eileh
... " - that the sin of Midos is worse than that of incest.
(c) The sin of Midos - refers to false weights and measures.
(d) Rava, who considers Arayos a serious sins, can well agree with the
D'rashah of Rebbi Levi - because we can say that the sin of incest is
serious, but that of Midos is more serious still.
(a) The Torah writes "Eileh" by Arayos, too ("mi'Kol ha'To'eivos ha'Eileh
ve'Nichresu") - to preclude Midos from Kareis.
(b) The sin of Midos is worse than that of Arayos - inasmuch as it is not
possible to repair it (because someone who steals from the community cannot
possibly know from whom he stole); whereas someone who is guilty of incest
just needs to desist from sinning, and his Teshuvah will be accepted
(provided he has not had children from his illicit relationships).
(c) Using the money that he stole for public service - is the next best
thing to returning what he stole - but real Teshuvah can only be achieved by
returning the stolen article to the person from whom one stole.
(d) Rav Yehudah learns that the Pasuk "*ve'Izein*, ve'Chiker, Tikein
Meshalim Harbeh" - hints at Sh'niyos, because, just like the handles
('Oznayim') of a box enable one to hold the box and prevent it from falling,
so too, do the Sh'niyos, prevent the Isur of Arayos from 'falling by the
(a) Rav Oshaya learns the same thing from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Par'eihu
(make the Isur bigger) Al Ta'avor Bo, S'tei mei'Alav va'Avor". Rav Ashi
explains this with a parable - of a person guarding his orchard. As long as
he guards it from the outside ("S'tei mei'Alav" 'Go away from it'), the
entire orchard is guarded; whereas were he to guard it from the inside,
what is in front of him is guarded, but not what is behind him.
(b) Rav Ashi's parable is a joke however - because there, at least what is
in front of him would be guarded; but if not for the Sh'niyos nothing would
be guarded (one would contravene the Isur of incest itself).
(c) Rav Kahana learns Sh'niyos from the Pasuk "u'Sh'martem es Mishmarti"
(written by the Arayos) - 'Asu Mishmeres le'Mishmarti'. Rav Yosef tries to
answer Abaye's Kashya, that, in that case, Sh'niyos would be d'Oraysa - by
explaining that Sh'niyos is really d'Oraysa, but the Rabbanan explained
(d) We reject this on the grounds that the Rabbanan explained all of the
Torah (yet we do not refer to all their D'rashos as de'Rabbanan). So we
finally conclude - that Sh'niyos are really mi'de'Rabbanan, and that the
Pasuk is merely an Asmachta.
(a) Our Mishnah lists eight Sh'niyos: His mother's mother, his father's
mother, his father's father's wife and his mother's father's wife. His
father's maternal brother's wife, his mother's paternal brother's wife - his
son's daughter-in-law and his daughter's daughter-in-law.
(b) Chazal decreed on his mother's mother, on account of his mother, and on
his father's father's wife on account of his father's wife. They decreed on
(c) These two are not a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah' - because in the former case,
one refers to both mother's as 'grandmother', and in the latter case, to
both husbands as 'grandfather', and will easily come to confuse the one with
(d) They decreed on ...
- ... his father's mother - on account of his mother's mother.
- ... his mother's father's wife - on account of his father's father's wife.
- ... his father's maternal brother's wife - on account of his father's paternal brother's wife.
- ... his mother's paternal brother's wife - on account of his father's maternal brother's wife.
- ... his son's daughter-in-law - on account of his own daughter-in-law.
... his daughter's daughter-in-law - on account of his son's daughter-in-law.
(a) His father-in-law's wife is permitted to him (provided she is not his
mother-in-law), and so is his step-son's wife - and his step-son is
permitted to marry his wife and his daughter.
(b) His step-son's wife says to him - 'I am permitted to you, but my
daughter (his own daughter-in-law) is not'; a particularly surprising
statement, considering that the latter is forbidden to him *min ha'Torah*.
(c) The Tana did not tell us the same thing about his father-in-law's wife,
who is permitted to him, even though her daughter is forbidden - because
this is not always true, seeing as she will become permitted should his wife
(a) Most of the Sh'niyos extend all the way up (e.g. mother's mother's
mother and father's father's father's wife) or down (e.g. Kalas B'no). Rav
knew three of the four that do not; his father's maternal brother's wife,
his mother's paternal brother's wife - and his daughter-in-law.
(b) The reason for the distinction between these four and the others is -
because there is no case of Ervah d'Oraysa in the generations of these four.
(c) Kalas B'no extends all the way down, and Kalas Bito does not - for the
same reason (because in the generations of Kalas B'no there is an Ervah
d'Oraysa [by B'no], whereas in the generations of Kalas Bito, there is not.
(a) Ze'iri supplies us with the fourth case that does not extend all the way
up. The Siman to remember it is 'one generation above Rav' - it is his
mother's father's wife.
(b) Rav declines to include this case - because, he maintains, if she would
be permitted, people would confuse her with his father's father's wife and
permit her too.
(c) Ze'iri is not concerned that one may confuse the two cases - because
people tend to frequent their father's relatives often, but not their
mother's (though this may not be the custom nowadays).
(a) 'Kalaso', which Rav includes as the third of the cases that do not
extend downwards, is obviously a mistake - because it is an Ervah d'Oraysa,
and not a Sh'niyah.
(b) The attempted amendment to 'Kalas B'no' is not acceptable either,
because of the Beraisa, which specifically includes Kalas B'no among those
that *do* extend downwards. So we amend 'Kalaso' of Rav - to 'Kalas Bito'.
(c) Based on a statement that he heard from Rebbi Ami, Rav Chisda explained
why Kalas B'no extends downwards, whereas Kalas Bito does not. Rebbi Ami
said - 'Lo Asru Kalah Ela Mipnei Kalah', which Rav Chisda explained to mean
that Chazal only forbade Kalas Bito on account of Kalas B'no (but not
intrinsically - as we explained in 6c.).
(a) When Rav Chisda first heard Rebbi Ami's statement, he was in a
quandary - because the astrologers told him that he would be a Chacham, and
he did not know whether they meant a Talmid-Chacham or a Rebbe of children.
If they meant the former, then he would be able to explain Rebbi Ami's
statement himself, but if they meant the latter, then he would have to ask
the Talmidei-Chachamim. When he later discovered the explanation on his own,
his quandary was resolved.
(b) Abaye pointed out to Rava the example of Kalasah de'Bei bar Tzisa'i -
who had two daughters-in-law, a Kalas B'no and a Kalas Bito, and if the
latter were to be permitted, they would permit the former, too. It seems
that he and the other Amora'im who pointed out the same thing in various
families, maintain that it is only when someone has a Kalas B'no as well,
that Kalas Bito is forbidden.
(c) His father's maternal brother's wife and his mother's *paternal*
brother's wife are among the Sh'niyos. How about his mother's *maternal*
brother's wife, we ask - is she permitted, seeing as there is no 'Tzad Av'
there, or perhaps she is included in the case of his mother's *paternal*
brother's wife? (It is unclear however, why the Gemara does not ask why,
should she be forbidden, the Tana omitted her from the Beraisa, as it asks
later on the Amud on a different case?)
(d) Rava rejects Rav Safra's contention that this case would only be
forbidden on account of his mother's paternal brother's wife, and would
therefore be a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah' which Chazal did not generally
decree - on the basis that many of the cases listed in the Beraisa are only
forbidden because of their similarity to other Sh'niyos, yet Chazal did
include them in their decree, as we shall now see.
(a) His father's mother, his mother's father's wife and his mother's
brother's wife have in common - the fact that all of them are a 'Gezeirah on
a Gezeirah': His father's mother is a decree on account of his mother's
mother (who is herself only a decree on account of his mother) [both of whom
are forbidden because they too, are referred to as 'grandmother']; his
mother's father's wife is a decree on account of his father's father's wife
(who is a decree on account of his father's wife) [both of whom are
forbidden because too, are referred to as 'grandfather']; and his mother's
paternal brother's wife is a decree on account of his father's maternal
brother's wife (who is herself a decree on account of his father's paternal
brother's wife) [both of whom are forbidden because they too, are referred
to as 'aunt'].
(b) When Rav Yehudah bar Shiloh came from Eretz Yisrael - he cited the
principle that whenever the female is an Ervah, they decreed on the
equivalent male's wife.
(c) Consequently - since his mother's maternal sister is an Ervah (as we
shall conclude in 'ha'Ba al Yevimto'), his mother's maternal brother's wife
is a Sh'niyah.
(d) We forbid his mother's maternal brother's wife on the basis of that
principle - because she became his aunt through *one* Kidushin, but not his
father-in-law's wife, his mother-in-law's son's wife, his stepson's wife and
his stepson's son's wife (despite the fact that all of the male equivalents
in those cases are Arayos - mother-in-law, sister-in-law [through his
mother-in-law or father-in-law], wife's daughter and granddaughter,
respectively) - who are more distant became they all became relatives
through *two* Kidushin.
(a) Rav Mesharshaya from Tusnaya asked Rav Papi whether the wife of one's
father's father's brother and the sister of one's father's father are
included in the Sh'niyos. Despite the fact that, one generation below (the
father's paternal brother's wife and his father's sister) are Arayos, they
might not be included - because the relationship is more distant (see
(b) Even if they *are* Sh'niyos, the Tana will have omitted them from the
list - because there are other cases that have been omitted too (omitting at
least *two* different cases from a Mishnah is justifiable, *one*, is not).
(a) Ameimar specifically permitted the wife of the generations above his
father's father's brother and the sister of his father's father.
(b) We ask on Ameimar from the sixteen Sh'niyos of Mar Brei de'Ravina.
Considering that Rebbi Chiya has a list of six Sh'niyos that are not listed
in the original Beraisa of eight - surely the remaining two must be his
father's father's brother and the sister of his father's father?
(c) The counter -argument (that even if we were to include these two in the
sixteen Sh'niyos of Mar Brei de'Ravina, there would still not be sixteen
[but seventeen], because of his mother's brother's wife, whom we included
above in the list of Sh'niyos) is not valid - due to the fact that the two
under discussion are considered as one (seeing as they are both called aunts
and one level below each of them is an Ervah).
(d) The fact that they are included in Mar B'rei de'Ravina's list le'Isur
does not prove anything - because whether they appear on a list of Mar B'rei
de'Ravina permitting them, or on a list of his forbidding them, is his name
stamped on the list? (The answer appears to be that Ameimar is perfectly
entitled to argue with Mar B'rei de'Ravina, but the Lashon does not imply