Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 40 - Highlights

The Gemora inquires as to the author of the following braisa: It is written: The yavam shall cohabit with her. This is a mitzvah. Initially (prior to her marriage), she was permitted to him. When she got married to the brother, she became prohibited to him on account of being his brother’s wife. When her husband died childless, she became permitted to him again. One might think that she returns to the original permissible status; the verse states: The yavam shall cohabit with her. This is a mitzvah.

Who taught this braisa?

Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi says: It is Abba Shaul, who maintains that one must have pure intentions when performing the mitzvah of yibum. This is the explanation of the braisa. It is written: The yavam shall cohabit with her. This is a mitzvah. Initially (prior to her marriage), she was permitted to him. He could have married her for her beauty or for the sake of marriage. When she got married to the brother, she became prohibited to him on account of being his brother’s wife. When her husband died childless, she became permitted to him again. One might think that she returns to the original permissible status and he can marry her for any purpose; the verse states: The yavam shall cohabit with her. This is a mitzvah. He may only cohabit with her if his intentions are purely for the sake of the mitzvah.

Rava interprets the braisa differently: The braisa can follow the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Abba Shaul and this is its explanation. It is written: The yavam shall cohabit with her. This is a mitzvah. Initially (prior to her marriage), she was permitted to him. The yavam could have married her then if he wanted. When she got married to the brother, she became prohibited to him on account of being his brother’s wife. When her husband died childless, she became permitted to him again. One might think that he has the choice of either performing a yibum or a chalitzah with her: the verse states: The yavam shall cohabit with her. Yibum is the preferential mitzvah. (39b)

The Gemora asks on Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi’s interpretation from the first part of the aforementioned braisa. The braisa stated: It is written [Vayikra 6:9]: It shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place. (This is referring to the remainder of a flour offering in the Beis Hamikdosh eaten by the Kohanim.) This is a mitzvah. Initially (prior to the sanctification of the mincha), it was permitted. Afterwards, when it became kodosh, it became forbidden to eat. After the removal of the kometz and its burning on the mizbeach, it becomes permitted for consumption. One might think that it returns to its original permissible status; the verse states: It shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place. This is a mitzvah.

The Gemora explains this braisa: It is understandable according to Rava; we can interpret the braisa according to the opinion of the Rabbis who maintained that yibum is the mitzvah which is more preferable than chalitzah. The explanation for this braisa is similar: It is written: It shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place. This is a mitzvah. Initially (prior to the sanctification of the mincha), it was permitted. If the Kohen desired, he may eat it, and if not, he could choose not to eat it. Afterwards, when it became kodosh, it became forbidden to eat. After the removal of the kometz and its burning on the mizbeach, it becomes permitted for consumption. One might think that it returns to its original permissible status; if the Kohen desired, he may eat it, and if not, he could choose not to eat it.

The Gemora interrupts to ask: Is there really a possibility that the Kohen can choose not to eat it? But it is written: And they shall eat them, those who gain atonement through them. This verse teaches that the Kohanim eat the offering and then the owner receives atonement.

The Gemora answers: One might think that it returns to its original permissible status; if the Kohen (who performed the mincha service) desired, he may eat it, and if he wishes, a different Kohen may eat it. The verse states: It shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place. This is a mitzvah (teaching us that there is a special mitzvah for the Kohen who performed the mincha service to eat it himself).

However, according to Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi, who holds that the braisa is following Abba Shaul’s opinion; what two possibilities of eating are there? What is the braisa teaching us?

Perhaps you will answer that one can eat the mincha with an appetite, or he can eat it ravenously by stuffing himself with the mincha even after he was full from eating other things.

This cannot be an option (we would never have thought that he can eat the mincha in such a manner) because Rish Lakish stated that one who eats ravenously on Yom Kippur is exempt from transgressing the prohibition of affliction on Yom Kippur. It is evident that this is not regarded as eating.

The Gemora answers: One would have thought that he can eat it as matzah (unleavened), and if he desires, he may eat it as chametz; the verse states: It shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place. This is a mitzvah (teaching us that it must be eaten as matzah).

The Gemora objects to this explanation as well: How could we have thought that the mincha could be eaten as chametz when Rish Lakish expounds a different verse to teach us that the Kohanim’s portion cannot be baked as chametz because it must be eaten as matzah?

The Gemora answers: The verse teaches us that the mincha must be eaten as matzah and not as scalded bread (first scalding the dough in boiling water and afterwards baking it). (39b – 40a)

The Gemora rules that although scalded bread is not regarded as matzah in respect to a mincha offering, one can fulfill his obligation of eating matzah on Pesach with it. Since it is baked in an oven after it is scalded, it is referred to as a poor man’s bread. (40a)

The Mishna states: One who performed a chalitzah with the yevamah is like any of the other brothers in regards to inheritance. If their father is alive, the father inherits the property (of the deceased brother).

One who performs a yibum with the yevamah merits the deceased brother’s entire estate. Rabbi Yehuda said: Even if he performs a yibum, the property belongs to their father if he is alive. (40a)

The Mishna had stated: One who performed a chalitzah with the yevamah is like any of the other brothers in regards to inheritance.

The Gemora asks: isn’t this obvious; why would we think differently?

The Gemora answers: One might have thought that he should be penalized and lose his share of the inheritance because his chalitzah accomplished that she is now prohibited to all the brothers; the Mishna teaches us that this is not so, and he inherits with all the brothers. (40a)

The Gemora presents a dispute if the halacha is according to the Rabbis or Rabbi Yehudah. (40a)

The Mishna states: One who performs chalitzah with his yevamah is prohibited from marrying her relatives, and she is not allowed to marry his relatives.

He is prohibited from marrying her mother, and her mother’s mother, and her father’s mother, and her daughter, and her daughter’s daughter, and her son’s daughter, and her sister while she herself is still alive. The brothers are permitted to marry all of these women.

The chalutzah is forbidden to his (the one who performed the chalitzah) father, and his father’s father, and his son, and his son’s son, and his brother, and his brother’s son.

He is permitted to marry the relative of his chalutzah’s co-wife, but he is prohibited from marrying the co-wife of his chalutzah’s relative. (40a – 40b)

The Gemora inquires: Did the Rabbis decree that secondary arayos are prohibited by a chalutzah (in the same manner that they decreed regarding a regular wife)? Perhaps there was no necessity for the decree since even the chalutzah’s primary relatives are only Rabbinically forbidden.

The Gemora attempt to bring proofs from the Mishna, but they are all rejected.

The Gemora cites support from a braisa taught by Rabbi Chiya that the secondary arayos of a chalutzah are indeed forbidden. (40b)

[END]

0 comments: