ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 22
YEVAMOS 22 & 23 - dedicated by Mrs. G. Turkel (Zurich/New York/Jerusalem),
may she have a full and speedy recovery!
(a) Rebbi Chiya adds six cases of Sh'niyos not listed in the original
Beraisa: 'Sh'lishi she'bi'V'no' ('Bas ben B'no') - which Chazal added on
account of Bas B'no, who is an Ervah, and 'Sh'lishi she'be'Bito' ('Bas ben
Bito') - on account of Bas Bito.
(b) The next two are - 'Bas ben B'nah shel Ishto', and 'Bas ben Bitah'.
(c) The final two are 'Revi'i she'be'Chamiv ve'she'be'Achoso' - meaning 'Eim
Eim Chamiv' and 'Eim Eim Chamoso'.
(a) All of the above cases are really the third generation, not counting
one's wife. In the first two (of the six) cases, Rebbi Chiya did *not*
include his wife, because the Isur is not the result of the marriage to his
wife - whereas in the last two, he *did* (by referring to them as 'Revi'i'),
because it *is*.
(b) He nevertheless did not count his wife in the middle two cases (his
wife's son's son's daughter or daughter's son's daughter'), whose
prohibition *is* due to his wife - because those case of Sh'niyos, the
result of his marriage, only echo those are due to his own relationship.
(a) Rav Ashi asked Rav Kahana whether the Sh'niyos of Rebbi Chiya extend
upwards or downwards or not. We cannot resolve this She'eilah from Rav, who
heard that only four women do not extend to other generations, among which
Rebbi Chiya's Sh'niyos are not included - because Rav only heard this in
reference to the original Beraisa which listed eight Sh'niyos.
(b) Neither can we resolve it from Rebbi Chiya himself, who said 'Sh'lishi'
and 'Revi'i' (implying that the Isur does not extend further) - because what
he may have meant is 'from the third and onwards, and from the fourth and
(c) When Rava informed Rav Nachman that, in Eretz Yisrael, they had posed
the She'eilah whether a convert is permitted to marry Sh'niyos or not - he
commented that, considering that, if not for the fear that the converts may
say 'We have come from a superior Kedushah to an inferior one', Chazal would
not have forbidden the Arayos themselves (because of the principle that a
convert is like a new-born baby - disconnected from his past and from his
past relatives), it is obvious that Chazal did not forbid the Sh'niyos.
(a) Rav Nachman drew a distinction between two maternal brothers who
converted, who are forbidden to testify in court - and two paternal
brothers, who may.
(b) The reason for this is - because even if a Nochri does not know for sure
who his father is, he certainly knows who is mother is (Rashi adds that the
Torah made the seed of a Nochri Hefker - removing any relationship with his
son - at least in certain regards [because with regard to inheritance, a
Nochri does inherit his father]).
(c) Ameimar disagrees with Rav Nachman. According to him - even maternal
brothers may testify in court.
(d) In spite of the fact that Chazal decreed forbidding a convert to marry
his blood relative, they nevertheless permitted two brothers to testify (see
Tosfos Yeshanim) - because Ervah lies in the hands of every individual (who
is likely to confuse converts with native Jews), whereas testimony lies in
the hands of Beis-Din (who are not likely to do so).
(a) When our Mishnah teaches that an 'Ach mi'Kol Makom' is required to
perform Yibum, and is considered a brother in all regards - it refers to a
brother who is a Mamzer (see Tosfos DH 'P'shita').
(b) The Tana considers it necessary to inform us of this - because we might
otherwise have learned "Achvah" "Achvah" from the B'nei Ya'akov that a
Mamzer is not a brother, and is therefore Patur from Yibum (see 17b.).
(c) The reason that he is nevertheless Chayav Yibum - is because, seeing as
a Mamzer is considered a son, and exempts his uncle from the need to perform
Yibum with his mother (as we shall see shortly), he is also considered a
brother, who can perform Yibum with his sister-in-law.
(d) A brother is not considered a brother regarding Yibum or anything else -
if he is born from a Shifchah Kena'anis or from a Nochris (even though he is
a biological brother).
(a) Someone exempts his brother from Yibum if he has a Ben mi'Kol Makom' -
meaning a Mamzer.
(b) He is also listed in our Mishnah as being a son - as regards being
Chayav Misah for striking his father and cursing him.
(c) A son born from a Shifchah or from a Noshris - is not considered a son
(even though biologically, he is).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that an 'Ach mi'Kol Makom' is a brother in
every regard - incorporating inheritance and the obligation to bury him
(even if he is a Kohen).
(b) The Tana needs to tell us this, because, in the case of a wife, this is
not so. We Darshen from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Ki im li'She'eiro ha'Karov Eilav" - that one of the relatives whom a
Kohen is obligated to bury is his wife ('Ein She'eiro Ela Ishto').
(c) The S'vara to make this distinction between a Pasul brother and a Pasul
wife - is the fact that, whereas the latter *stands to be divorced* (and is
therefore considered as if she was not his wife), the former does *not* (and
is therefore considered a brother under all circumstances).
2. ... "Lo Yitama Ba'al be'Amav le'Heichalo" - that he is not however,
permitted to bury his wife who is Pasul to him (e.g. a divorcee, whom he
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah Tihyeh la'Adonehah" - that the child of a
Shifchah is not considered the son of his (Jewish - biological) father, or
the brother of his father's son.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Nasi *be'Amcha* Lo Sa'or" - that one may
curse a king who does not behave like a Jew.
2. ... "u'Bein Ein Lo" - 'Ayein Alav', meaning that whatever sort of son he
has (even a Mamzer) will exempt his wife from Yibum when he dies.
(c) Based on a statement of Rav Pinchas quoting Rav Papa, we reconcile this
D'rashah with our Mishnah, which obligates a Mamzer to honor his father who
committed incest - by establishing the latter when his father performed
(d) When Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah taught in a Mishnah in Chagigah that
someone who commits incest and gives birth to a Mamzer cannot rectify his
sin, he was talking about the past, which cannot be rectified - but as far
as the future is concerned, from the moment he performs Teshuvah, he is
considered a good Jew in every regard.
(a) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, someone who commits incest
with his sister who is also his wife's daughter be'Shogeg, brings only one
Chatas. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ervas bas Eishes
Avicha Moledes Avicha, Achoscha Hi" (in spite of having already written
"Ervas Achoscha bas Avicha O bas Imecha") - that one is Chayav for Ervas bas
Eishes Avicha, too (two Chata'os be'Shogeg or possibly, two sets of Malkos,
(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns that he only brings one Chatas - from
the Pasuk "Achoscha *Hi*" (to preclude bas Eishes Avicha).
(c) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "Achoscha Hi" - that one is Chayav
Kareis even for a sister who is both a paternal and a maternal one.
(d) This D'rashah refers to a sister who is born from rape (because one who
is born from his wife is specifically mentioned).
(a) The Rabbanan learn from "Hi" the principle of 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din'
(with regard to Malkos) - meaning that we cannot learn a sister who is both
a paternal and a maternal sister (whom the Torah does *not* mention) from a
paternal sister or a maternal sister (whom it *does*).
(b) we could not learn 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din' from the fact that the
Torah needs to write "Achoscha" at all (to teach us that Achoso bas Aviv
u'Bas Imo is Chayav) - because we would then have applied the principle
'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal va'Chomer Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra' (the Torah will
sometimes take the trouble to mention something, even though it could be
learned from a 'Kal va'Chomer').
(c) In view of this D'rashah (with which everyone agrees, Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Yehudah derives his opinion that one is not Chayav for the La'av of
Eishes Aviv - from the fact that the Torah writes "Achoscha Hi" by the Pasuk
of "Ervas bas Eishes Avicha ... ", and not by that of "Ervas Achoscha ... "
(causing him to make the inference from "Hi" the way he does).
(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "Ervas bas Eishes
Avicha ... " - that a sister born from a woman whom her father cannot marry
is not called a sister (i.e. a Shifchah or a Nochris).
(a) We infer from the Pasuk "Ervas bas Bincha O bas Bitcha Lo Segaleh" -
that it is only one's own granddaughter who is forbidden, but not he
granddaughter of one's wife - obviously clashing with the Pasuk "Ervas Ishah
u'Bitah Lo Segaleh, es bas B'noh ve'es bas Bitoh ... ".
(b) Rava resolves this discrepancy by establishing the former Pasuk by a
woman whom he raped (and whose granddaughter from another man is permitted
to him), and the latter Pasuk by the woman whom he married, (whose
granddaughter is forbidden - even from another man).
(c) We suggested that perhaps Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah's will use the
Pasuk "Ervas bas Eishes Avicha ... " to preclude a *sister* born from the
woman whom his father raped (that she should be permitted to him, because
she is not considered his sister). But we see from Rava's D'rashah, that it
is only the *granddaughter* (and only from another man) of the woman whom a
man raped who is permitted, but his daughter and his son from her are
considered a daughter and a son and are forbidden, in which case, his
daughter will also be considered the sister of the man's son, and we cannot
possibly preclude her.