BOXING TITLE MATCH CONFLICTING WITH MAARIV - Yevamos 65 - Daf Yomi

Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Elozar the son of Rabbi Shimon: Just as it is a mitzvah to say words of rebuke which will be heard and accepted, so too it is a mitzvah to not say something which will not be heard and accepted.

Rabbi Abba said: It is an obligation not to rebuke someone who won’t accept the message as it written [Mishlei 9:8]: Don’t rebuke a scorner lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.

Rabbi Abba Spero from Cleveland told Rabbi Yissochar Frand an incident involving Rav Motel Katz. Rabbi Frand told him that he could not believe that the incident occurred, Rabbi Spero responded that he had documentary proof of the incident. He sent Rabbi Frand a copy of the incident described by Rav Motel himself in his own collected writings.

Rabbi Frand received permission from the son of Rav Motel, Rav Yakov Velvel Katz to publicly relate this incident, which he did here.

The incident that Rav Motel related occurred at the Telshe Yeshiva in Cleveland [presumably sometime in the 1950s]. The incident, which was an applied example of the above lesson, was as follows:

"I was asked by the students of the Yeshiva to permit them to daven Ma'ariv [conduct evening prayers] early. They requested that the established schedule of the Yeshiva be changed for the evening. Why did they wish to change the Yeshiva's prayer schedule? So that they could listen on the radio to the Championship Prize Fight in New York to hear who wins."

Imagine if students came to the Rosh Yeshiva [Dean] today to ask that the Yeshiva prayer times be changed because of the NBA Playoffs!!
Rav Motel explained: "I knew full well that it was inappropriate to change the time of Ma'ariv and the Yeshiva's schedule for a Heavyweight Prize Fight between people who are trained to hurt and injure one another."

But what did this great product of Lithuanian Yeshivas -- this product of Telshe in Europe -- decide to do? What did Rav Motel respond to the request to daven Ma'ariv early so they could listen to the fight on the radio?

"I could not stop them and prohibit them from doing this. I knew that this was not the time to say no. Famous and respected people come from all over the country to be present at a Heavyweight Championship Fight, to get ringside seats. A thousand people come from all parts of the country! This prizefight was viewed by the masses as an event of major proportions! It is difficult to forbid it. I could not say no because they would not know where I was coming from and they would not understand my reasoning."

The majority of students in the Telshe yeshiva in the 1940s and 1950s came from public schools. They came to Telshe from small isolated communities. High level Torah study was just beginning to take root in America. They had not achieved the spiritual level whereby they could understand the idea that watching two people hitting each other in a boxing ring is a foolish pastime. To get up in the Yeshiva and castigate such activity as stupidity and nonsense would fall on deaf ears.

Rav Motel could not consider what his teachers in Europe would think about changing the time of Ma'ariv to accommodate such an event, because he knew that HIS students were not at the level of his teacher's students. His students at that time were not ready to fully appreciate priorities based on Torah values.

That is Chinuch: Knowing when to say and when not to say -- knowing one's children and one's students and knowing the time and the mentality prevalent in the era in which one is teaching. That is Chinuch!

In the great Yeshiva of Telshe, 'Chinuch' in that situation was to schedule Ma'ariv early so that the students could listen to a prizefight on the radio.

I would not have believed this story if I had not seen it written by Rav Motel himself. This is a great tribute to the pedagogic wisdom of Rav Motel Katz, zt"l. It is a tremendous insight into the meaning of being an educator or a father or a Rebbi or a Rosh Yeshiva. Sometimes it is necessary to say "Yes". But sometimes it is just necessary to not say anything at all!

This is what we pray for when we recite the prayer (in Shmoneh Esrei, the Amidah) for wisdom and understanding. We are asking G-d to grant us the wisdom to do what is right in the education of our children, our students and our community.

Read more!

LICENSE TO LIE - Yevamos 65 - Daf Yomi

Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Elozar the son of Rabbi Shimon: It is permitted for a person to alter the truth in the interest of peace. This is derived from the verses in Breishis (50: 15 – 17) which occur immediately after the death of Yaakov. And they sent a message to Yosef saying: “Your father commanded before he died, saying: ‘So you shall say to Yosef: Please forgive now the transgression of your brethren, and their sin, for they did to you evil . . .’” (The brothers modified the words of Yaakov in this matter for they were concerned that Yosef would avenge himself for the suffering that they had caused him.)

Rabbi Nosson said: It is a mitzvah for a person to alter the truth in the interest of peace. This he derives from the verses in Samuel I 16:2. (Hashem commanded Shmuel to anoint David as successor to King Shaul.) Samuel said, “How can I go? If Saul hears it he will kill me.” And Hashem said, “Take a heifer with you and say, I have come to sacrifice unto the Lord.”

The academy of Rabbi Yishmael taught the following braisa: Great is peace, for even the Holy One, blessed is He, modified a statement for the sake of peace. It is written (regarding Sarah's reaction to the prophecy that she would bear a son) [Breishis 18:12]: “My husband is old,” while afterwards it is written (as Hashem reports Sarah's reaction to Avraham) [ibid: 13]: “Why is it that Sarah laughed saving, ‘Shall I bear a child, though I am old?’”
Rabbi Moshe Menachem Liberman, a member of the Chicago Community Kollel discusses some of the halachos regarding the modification of the truth for certain purposes.

http://www.cckollel.org/html/parsha/bereishis/vayichi5764.html
“And they sent a message to Yoseph saying: Your father commanded before he died, saying: So you shall say to Yoseph: Please forgive now the transgression of your brethren, and their sin, for they did to you evil . . .” Vayechi 50:16-17.
Rashi points out that the brothers modified the words of Yaakov Avinu in this matter in the interest of peace because Yaakov Avinu had not actually commanded thus.1 The Gemara learns from these pesukim that there is a license to alter the truth in the interest of peace.2 This freedom to alter the truth is actually mandatory and not merely an authorization to alter the truth.3 Before we look at this obligation to alter the truth in the interest of peace, it behooves us to examine the general restriction against altering it.
The Torah states in Parshas Mishpatim, “From a false matter you shall distance yourself.”4 Thus, halachic authorities hold that there is a biblical obligation to refrain from lying.5 Furthermore, Hashem exhorts us to speak the truth, as the Navi in Zechariah states, “Let one man speak with another in truth.”6
The threshold for establishing what constitutes a falsehood, though, is very low. A mere omission is considered an alteration of the truth.7 The Chofetz Chaim deduces this from the Talmud in Yevamos 65b which states:
Peace is important because even Hakodosh Boruch Hu altered the truth in the interest of peace. Initially the Torah writes [that Sarah Imeinu, after hearing that she will give birth to a son to Avraham Avinu, said], “[After I am old shall my skin become smooth] and my husband is old?”8 And afterwards it writes [Hashem (only) told Avraham Avinu that Sarah Imeinu had said], “and I am old?”9
The only difference between what Sarah Imeinu said and what Hashem told Avraham Avinu that she said, was that Hashem omitted the comment that she had made concerning Avraham Avinu.10 This omission, the Gemara said, was permitted only because it was done in the interest of peace.11 Thus, even a mere omission of part of an otherwise true statement is considered a falsehood to which we are commanded to keep our distance.12
Although merely omitting is considered a falsehood, when altering the truth in the interest of peace, it is preferred to an outright lie.13 Of course, if merely omitting would be insufficient then he should outright lie.14 This obligation to lie in the interest of peace, however, does not sanction swearing falsely.15 Additionally, one may not lie concerning things which have not yet happened.16
There are other times when it is also appropriate to lie. If a person is asked whether he is knowledgeable in a certain Mesechta, he may lie and answer that he is not when in fact he is.17 However, if he is asked in order to provide an answer to a halachic query or to teach, then he must answer truthfully, consistent with his expertise in the Mesechta.18
If a person is asked in the presence of disreputable people concerning the graciousness of his host, he may lie and answer that his host was not gracious.19
The contemporary halachic authorities also permit altering the truth in the following circumstances:
• People may answer, “I don't know” when asked about a matter that is supposed to remain secret.20
• Wealthy individuals may lie about their wealth if they fear “the evil eye” (ayin hara) or if they do not want to arouse jealousy.21
• If one fears that a package will be mishandled, it is permitted to write “glass” on it, even though it does not contain any glass.22
______________________________
1 Rashi al Hatorah, Vayechi 50:16 (beginning with the words “Your father commanded”)
2 Yevamos 65b
3 Derishah al Choshen Mishpat 262:21
4 23:7.
5 Rabbi Shmuel Hominer, Eved HaMelech, Parshas Mishpatim 23:7:1 (citing SMa”G at Esay 107 and SMa”K 226) (4th ed. 1998); but see Rabbi Menachem Trivash, Orach Maysharim 9:1:1 (noting that this verse is only a restriction on judges and witnesses in the judicial context) (3d ed. 1968).
6 Mesilas Yesharim Chapter 11 (quoting Zechariah 8:16 and other sources).
7 Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus 1:8:14.
8 Vayera 18:12.
9 Id. at 18:13.
10 Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus 1:8:14.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus 1:8.
14 Id.
15 Id.; but see Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus 1:8:15 (noting that if there is a foreseeable loss to the other person it is questionable whether swearing falsely may be permitted).
16 Magen Avraham 156:2 (citing Sefer Chasidim 426); but see Mishnah Berurah 156:4 (commenting on Magen Avraham 156:2 that it is questionable); see Rabbi Shmuel Hominer, Eved HaMelech, Parshas Mishpatim 23:7:2 (explaining that the Mishnah Berurah does not understand why there should be a limitation as to when one may alter the truth in the interest of peace).
17 Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 262:21.
18 Be'er HaGolah al Choshen Mishpat 262:9.
19 Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 262:21.
20 Rabbi Doniel Yehuda Neustadt, The Weekly Halachic Discussion, 47 (citing Titen Emes l'Yaakov at 76 (quoting Harav S.Z. Auerbach and Harav S.Y. Elyashiv)) (2d rev. ed. 2002).
21 Id. (citing Titen Emes l'Yaakov at 78 (quoting Harav S.Y. Elyashiv)).
22 Id. at 48 (citing Titen Emes l'Yaakov at 66 (quoting Harav S.Y. Elyashiv, Harav Y.Y. Fisher, and Harav C. Kanievsky)).

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 65 - Highlights

It was taught in a braisa: If a woman was married to one husband and she did not bear him children, and to a second one and she did not bear him children, she should not be married to a third, unless he already has children. If she went and married another man, he is required to divorce her without paying her kesuvah (provided that he didn’t know of her situation). (65a)

The Gemora inquires: What is the law if she married a third husband and did not have children with him either? Can the first two husbands demand from her to refund the kesuvah money that they paid her? Can they claim, “It is now revealed conclusively that it was on your account that we didn’t have children (the marriage will retroactively be annulled and you must refund the kesuvah money)”? Or perhaps she can counter, “I have now become too weak to conceive (but perhaps when we were married, you were the cause).”

The Gemora rules: It is logical to say that she can claim: “I have now become too weak to conceive,” and therefore she would not be required to refund the kesuvah money. (65a)

The Gemora inquires: What is the law if she married a fourth husband and had a child with him? Can she demand her kesuvah money from the third husband?

The Gemora rules: We say to her: “Your silence is better for you than your speech,” for the third husband can tell her, “If I would have known that you are capable of conceiving, I would never have divorced you (this would invalidate the divorce, and the children born with the fourth husband would be mamzeirim).

Rav Pappa asks: Even if she is quiet, can we remain quiet? It emerges that the husband divorced her under a false pretense, which would invalidate the divorce, and the children born with the fourth husband would be mamzeirim. Rather, Rav Pappa rules that we say she has only now become healthy (and the third husband is not required to pay). (65a)

The Gemora inquires: If the husband claims that they are childless because of her (and this claim (if undisputed) would result in her losing the kesuvah), and she counters that it is because of him, what is the halacha?

Rabbi Ami rules: She is believed regarding private matters that are between him and her. Why is she believed? She is certain if his semen shoots like an arrow (and is thus capable of fertilization), whereas he does not know conclusively if his semen shoots like an arrow. (65a)

The Gemora inquires further: If the husband claims, “(I want to delay paying you the kesuvah for) I will marry another wife, and I will test myself if I am truly infertile,” is the wife obligated to accept this arrangement?

Rabbi Ami rules: Even in this case, he is required to divorce her and pay the kesuvah immediately. The reason is because one who marries a second wife (against the will of the first wife) must divorce the first wife and pay her kesuvah.

Rava disagrees, and maintains that a man may marry many women (even against the will of the first wife), as long as he has the ability to support them all (and therefore he is not required to pay the kesuvah money until it has been determined if he is fertile or not). (65a)

The Mishna had stated: If during the marriage she miscarried, the ten years should be counted from the time of the miscarriage.

The Gemora inquires: If the husband claims, “You have miscarried during the ten years that we were married (and I am not required to divorce you yet),” and she counters, “I have not miscarried,” whom do we believe?

Rabbi Ami rules: Even in this case, she is believed, for if she indeed miscarried, she would not want to conceal this fact, which would establish herself (if concealed) as a barren woman. (65b)

The Gemora rules: If a woman miscarries, and miscarries a second time, and miscarries a third time, she is established as a woman who miscarries (the husband is required to divorce her, and pay her kesuvah money).

If the husband claimed that she miscarried two times, and she claims that she has miscarried three times, Rabbi Yitzchak ben Elozar said: An incident like this came to the Beis Medrash, and they ruled that she is believed, for if the truth was that she did not miscarry a third time, she would not want to establish herself as a woman who gives birth to stillborn children. (65b)

The Mishna states: A man is obligated in the mitzvah of procreation, but not a woman. Rabbi Yochanan ben Berokah said: (They are both commanded) Regarding both of them, the torah states [Breishis 1:28]: And God blessed them and God said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply.” (65b)

The Gemora cites two opinions as to the Scriptural source for the opinion that only the man is obligated in the mitzvah of procreation, but not the woman. (65b)

Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Elozar the son of Rabbi Shimon: Just as it is a mitzvah to say words of rebuke which will be heard and accepted, so too it is a mitzvah to not say something which will not be heard and accepted.

Rabbi Abba said: It is an obligation not to rebuke someone who won’t accept the message as it written [Mishlei 9:8]: Don’t rebuke a scorner lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. (65b)

Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Elozar the son of Rabbi Shimon: It is permitted for a person to alter the truth in the interest of peace. This is derived from the verses in Breishis (50: 15 – 17) which occur immediately after the death of Yaakov. And they sent a message to Yosef saying: “Your father commanded before he died, saying: ‘So you shall say to Yosef: Please forgive now the transgression of your brethren, and their sin, for they did to you evil . . .’” (The brothers modified the words of Yaakov in this matter for they were concerned that Yosef would avenge himself for the suffering that they had caused him.)

Rabbi Nosson said: It is a mitzvah for a person to alter the truth in the interest of peace. This he derives from the verses in Samuel I 16:2. (Hashem commanded Shmuel to anoint David as successor to King Shaul.) Samuel said, “How can I go? If Saul hears it he will kill me.” And Hashem said, “Take a heifer with you and say, I have come to sacrifice unto the Lord.”

The academy of Rabbi Yishmael taught the following braisa: Great is peace, for even the Holy One, blessed is He, modified a statement for the sake of peace. It is written (regarding Sarah's reaction to the prophecy that she would bear a son) [Breishis 18:12]: “My husband is old,” while afterwards it is written (as Hashem reports Sarah's reaction to Avraham) [ibid: 13]: “Why is it that Sarah laughed saving, ‘Shall I bear a child, though I am old?’” (65b)

[END]

Read more!

FOOD FOR THOUGHT REGARDING TEFILLOS - Yevamos 64 - Daf Yomi

Our Gemora tells us that Hashem desires the prayers of the righteous. The Matriarchs were barren only so that they should pray to Hashem for children. Their desire for progeny caused the Matriarchs and the Patriarchs to pray to Hashem at a level that under normal circumstances they would not have done.

Rabbi Yitzchak said: Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a pitchfork, as just like a pitchfork turns over the grain on the threshing floor from one place to another, so too the prayers of the righteous transform the manner in which HaShem conducts Himself from the Attribute of Cruel Judgment to the Attribute of Mercy.


*** Why did Hashem have to make them infertile; is there no other reason to pray to Him? If they would have had children, would they not have prayed for their health, sustenance and spiritual growth?


*** Divrei Yoel cites a Zohar and explains: It is on account of the prayers of the righteous that all future salvations will be effected. The Divrei Yoel explains with a parable: A king was traveling in a desert and he became very thirsty. The king's servants sought to bring the king water from a distant land. The king said, "I have the capabilities to bring sufficient water from afar for ourselves, but how will anyone else who passes through this area survive?" The king then commanded his servants to dig in the sand until they would find water, and by discovering a well, all future travelers would be able to survive in the desert. Similarly, explains the Divrei Yoel, people in future generations will be in need of a salvation, but they may not be deserving of it. It is through the tefillos of our forefathers that the gateways for these salvations will be effected.


*** The Sfas Emes writes that Yitzchak was answered through Tefillas Mincha. The Gemora states that one should be extremely careful in Mincha because this was the tefillah that Eliyahu was answered with.


*** The Imrei Emes comments that although the essence of Yitzchak was judgment, in the depths of judgment lies chesed, kindness; it was through this that he had the ability to transform the manner in which HaShem conducts Himself, from the Attribute of Cruel Judgment to the Attribute of Mercy.


*** Imrei Shefer writes that part of the tefillah that Yitzchak prayed at that time was the tefillah of “b’fi yeshorim tisromam etc.” which contains Yitzchak and Rivkah’s name in it.

Read more!

HASHEM WANTS OUR TEFILLOS - Yevamos 64 - Daf Yomi

It is written in the Megillah [2:5]: There was a Jewish man in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordechai, son of Yair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, from the tribe of Binyamin. The Gemora asks: What is the significance in mentioning all these names? The Gemora cites a braisa which states that all these names are in fact referring To Mordechai. He is called the son of Yair because he brightened the eyes of the Jewish people in prayer. He is referred to as the son of Shimei because Hashem listened to his prayers. He is called the son of Kish because he knocked on the Gates of Mercy and they were opened for him.

The Shem Meshmuel asks: According to this explanation, the phrases are seemingly in reverse order. First, one knocks on the Gates of Mercy, then Hashem would listen to his prayers and afterwards he would brighten the eyes of Klal Yisroel.

Rabbi Eliezer Ginzburg in his sefer, The King’s Treasures cites an important principle that was often said by the Mirrer Mashgiach, Reb Yerucham Levovitz.

The Medrash in Parshas Beshalach (61:5) states: Why did Hashem scare the Jewish people? The Medrash answers: Because Hashem desired their prayers. The Medrash is teaching us that the primary purpose behind the Splitting of the Sea was to stir Klal Yisroel to prayer.

Our Gemora tells us that Hashem desires the prayers of the righteous. The Matriarchs were barren only so that they should pray to Hashem for children. Their desire for progeny caused the Matriarchs and the Patriarchs to pray to Hashem at a level that under normal circumstances they would not have done.

This can be said in regard to the hardships that happened to the Jewish people in Shushan. It was to chase away the spiritual gloom that comes with exile and to brighten the eyes of Klal Yisroel through tefillah. The phrases are thus arranged in levels of importance.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 64 - Highlights

The Mishna states: If one was married to a woman for ten years, and she did not beget him children; he is not permitted to abstain from the mitzvah of procreation. (He either should divorce her and marry another woman or take a co-wife.)

If he divorces her, she is permitted to marry another man, and the second man is also permitted to remain with her for ten years.

If during the marriage she miscarried, the ten years should be counted from the time of the miscarriage. (64a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: If one was married to a woman for ten years, and she did not beget him children; he is required to divorce her and give her the money promised in the kesuvah, for perhaps he did not merit that he would build a family with her. Even though there is no absolute proof to this halacha, there is a hint of a proof from the following verse [Breishis 16:3]: And Sarai Avram's wife took Hagar the Egyptian, her maidservant, after Avram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Avram her husband to be his wife. (We see that Avram took a second wife after ten years of a childless marriage.)

We can infer another halacha from this braisa. By the fact that the Torah specified that Avram took Hagar as a wife after living ten years in Canaan, we see the time that he spent living outside of Eretz Yisroel is not included in the count of ten years (perhaps he remained childless because he was residing outside of Eretz Yisroel).

The Gemora derives from here that if during the ten years of marriage, he became sick, or she became sick, or if they were both imprisoned, those days are not included in the count of ten years. (64a)

Rava said to Rav Nachman: Why don’t we learn from Yitzchak, who remained with his wife twenty years before having children? This can be proven by the verse [Breishis 25:20]: And Yitzchak was forty years old when he took Rivkah, the daughter of Besuel the Aramean, of Paddan-aram, the sister of Lavan the Aramean, to be his wife. And it is written [Ibid v.26]: And Yitzchak was sixty years old when she bore them.

Rav Nachman answered him: Yitzchak was sterile (and he knew that it was on this account that they didn’t have children).

The Gemora asks: If so, how can we learn from Avraham; he too was sterile?

(The Gemora concedes that we cannot learn this halacha from Avraham or from Yitzchak; rather, it is derived from the extra words in the verse cited above: “after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan.” We could have made the calculation ourselves, and deduce the amount of years that Avram lived in Canaan. The Gemora asks: Aren’t the verses specifying Yitzchak’s twenty year wait also superfluous?)

The Gemora answers: That verse (And Yitzchak was sixty years old when she bore them) is needed for Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, for he said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Why did the Torah count the years of Yishmael? It was in order that we can use that information to calculate the years of Yaakov. (64a)

Rabbi Yitzchak proves that Yitzchak was sterile: It is written [Breishis 25:21]: And Yitzchak entreated Hashem opposite his wife, because she was barren. The verse does not say “for his wife,” rather it says, “opposite his wife.” This teaches us that they were both infertile; Yitzchak and Rivkah.

The Gemora asks: If so, why does the verse conclude, and Hashem let Himself be entreated by him? The Torah should have written, and Hashem let Himself be entreated by them?

The Gemora answers: It is because the prayer of a righteous person who is the son of a righteous person is not comparable to the prayer of a righteous person who is the son of a wicked person. (64a)

Rabbi Yitzchak said: Why were our forefathers infertile? It is because Hashem desires the prayers of the righteous. (They were barren only so that they should pray to Hashem for children.)

Rabbi Yitzchak said: Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a pitchfork, as just like a pitchfork turns over the grain on the threshing floor from one place to another, so too the prayers of the righteous transform the manner in which HaShem conducts Himself from the Attribute of Cruel Judgment to the Attribute of Mercy. (64a)

Rabbi Ami said: Avraham and Sarah were both tumtemim (people that their sex cannot be determined). He cites a Scriptural source to support his opinion.

Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: Sarah, our Matriarch, was an aylonis. He cites a Scriptural source to support his opinion that Sarah didn’t even have a uterus. (64a – 64b)

The Mishna had stated: If one was married to a woman for ten years, and she did not beget him children; he is not permitted to abstain from the mitzvah of procreation.

Rav Yehudah son of Rav Shmuel bar Shilas said in the name of Rav: The ten-year rule was only taught regarding the early generations, who lived extremely long lives; however, regarding the later generations, who live for relatively few years, the rule is two and a half years, corresponding to the amount of time it would take for three full pregnancies (plus a month in between to become pregnant).

Rav Nachman said: The rule is three years, corresponding to three “remembrances” (when Hashem decreed that these barren women should bear children). We have learned: Hashem decreed on Rosh Hashanah that Sarah, Rochel and Chanah would give birth to children

Rabbah disagrees and maintains that the ten year rule is still applicable. He said: Let us see; who established the Mishna? It was Rebbe. And already in the times of King David, a regular person’s lifespan had been shortened, as it is written [Tehillim 90:10]: The days of our years are seventy years. (64b)

The Mishna had stated: If one was married to a woman for ten years, and she did not beget him children; he is not permitted to abstain from the mitzvah of procreation. (He either should divorce her and marry another woman or take a co-wife.)

The Gemora asks: (Will he have children from the second wife?) But the Rabbis once told Rabbi Abba bar Zavda: “Marry a wife and have children.” He answered them: “If I would have merited, I would have had children from my first wife.”

The Gemora answers: He was merely pushing them off, for Rabbi Abba bar Zavda was merely pushing them off since he had become sterile due to Rav Huna’s discourses (which were very lengthy, and Rav Huna forced himself not to leave in the middle to take care of his bodily functions; this resulted in sterility).

The Gemora comments: Rav Gidel had become sterile due to Rav Huna’s discourses. Rav Chelbo had become sterile due to Rav Huna’s discourses. Rav Sheishes had become sterile due to Rav Huna’s discourses.

Rav Acha bar Yaakov was once stricken with suskinsa (a disease which comes about on account of resisting the need to urinate). They hung him from a cedar column which was used to support the Beis Medrash (as a remedy), and a discharge came from him whose color was like the green branch of a palm tree.

Rav Acha bar Yaakov said: There were sixty scholars amongst us, and they all became sterile due to Rav Huna’s discourses except for me because I upheld that which is written [Koheles 7:12]: Wisdom preserves the life of its possessor. (64b)

The Mishna had stated: If he divorces her, she is permitted to marry another man, and the second man is also permitted to remain with her for ten years.

The Gemora infers from here that she will only be permitted to marry a second time, but not a third time (since after two times, we presume that she is incapable of bearing children).

The Gemora states: our Mishna seems to be reflecting the viewpoint of Rebbe, who maintains that a chazakah (a presumption) is established after an act occurs two times. We have learned in a braisa: If a woman had two of her sons circumcised, and they died, she should not have the third son circumcised (for we assume that her sons cannot survive circumcision). Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, however, maintains that an act must occur three times in order to establish a chazakah; therefore, he rules that she could have the third son circumcised, but not the fourth son.

The Gemora asks: But we have learned in a braisa exactly the opposite (their opinions are reversed)?

The Gemora asks (in an attempt to ascertain which braisa is authoritative): Which of these is the latter?

Come and hear what Rabbi Chiya bar Abba stated in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: It once happened with four sisters at Tzippori that when the first had circumcised her child, he died; when the second circumcised her child, he also died, and when the third circumcised her child, he also died. The fourth came before Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel who told her, “Do not circumcise the child.” (It is evident that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel holds that three times establish a chazakah.)

The Gemora asks: But is it not possible that if the third sister had come, he would also have told her the same?

The Gemora answers: If so, what was the purpose of the testimony of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba?

The Gemora rejects this proof: It is possible that he meant to teach us that sisters can also establish a presumption.

Rava said: Now that it has been stated that sisters also establish a presumption, a man should not marry a woman from a family of epileptics, or from a family of lepers. This applies only when the fact had been established by the occurrence of three cases.

The Gemora returns to its original question: What is the decision (regarding the opinions of Rebbe and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel)?

The Gemora brings a proof: When Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef came (from Eretz Yisroel to Bavel) he said: Such a case was once submitted to Rabbi Yochanan in the Synagogue of Ma'on on Yom Kippur which fell out on Shabbos. A woman had her child circumcised, and he died; her second sister had her child circumcised, and he also died; and the third sister appeared before him. He said to her: “Go and circumcise him.” (It would seem that Rabbi Yochanan was relying on what he observed from Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel that two times do not establish a chazakah.) (64b)

Abaye said to Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef: See, you have permitted a forbidden (to circumcise the child even on Shabbos) and a dangerous act.

Abaye, however, relying upon this statement married Chomah the daughter of Issi, the son of Rav Yitzchak, the son of Rav Yehudah. She had been married to Rechava of Pumbedisa who died while married to her. Rav Yitzchak son of Rabbah bar bar Chanah also married her and he died as well. Abaye relied on the fact that two occurrences do not establish a chazakah, and went and married her, and subsequently died.

Rava said: Would any one else have exposed himself to such danger? Abaye himself had said that Avin was reliable, but that Yitzchak the Red was not a person to be relied upon; that Avin constantly reviewed the views of Rabbi Yochanan, but Yitzchak the Red did not!

Furthermore, it might be said that their dispute extended only to the case of circumcision (where it would involve negating a mitzvah); do they, however, differ also in the case of marriage?

The Gemora answers: Yes, for so it was taught: If a woman was married to one husband who died, and to a second one who also died, she must not be married to a third; these are the words of Rebbe. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said: She may be married to a third, but she may not be married to a fourth.

The Gemora asks: Regarding circumcision, it is understandable, for some families may have thin blood and some families may have thick blood (it might not clot properly). What is the reason in the case of marriage?

Rav Mordechai said to Rav Ashi: Thus did Avimi from Hagronia say in the name of Rav Huna: The spring is the cause (cohabiting with her). Rav Ashi stated: The woman's mazal is the cause.

What practical difference is there between them? The difference between them is the case where the man only betrothed her and died, or also when he fell off a palm tree and died. (64b)

[END]

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 14/15 - Yevamos 64 - Help Please

The Gemora states that the prayers of the righteous are likened to a pitchfork, as just like a pitchfork turns over the grain on the threshing floor from one place to another, so too the prayers of the righteous transform the manner in which HaShem conducts Himself from the Attribute of Cruel Judgment to the Attribute of Mercy.

I once heard or saw a very good vort on this comparison, but I have not been able to locate it. Anyone care to help me please? Thanks

Read more!

DISTANT CELEBRATION OF REB AKIVA EIGER’S WEDDING - Yevamos 63 - Daf Yomi

Reb Wolf Eiger, the uncle of Reb Akiva Eiger was unable to attend his nephew's wedding. He made a simultaneous banquet of his own to celebrate the occasion. Reb Shaya Pik and other Rabbanim attended the festivities. He wrote to his nephew about the halachic issues (if one can fulfill the mitzvah of counting the omer by way of writing) which were discussed at the banquet.

What was the point of such a celebration? They weren’t dancing before the groom or the bride; they weren’t praising the groom in front of the bride. What caused these Rabbonim to celebrate in such a manner?

In the West (Eretz Yisroel) they would say: (A man who does not have a wife lives) without Torah.

Why is not having a wife like living without Torah; if anything, there exists more time for Torah study, not less?

The Gemora states: It was taught in a braisa: Rabbi Eliezer said: Whoever does not occupy himself with the mitzvah of procreation is considered like a murderer.

Rabbi Yaakov said: It is as if he diminished the Divine Image.

Ben Azzai said: It is considered like a murderer and as if he diminished the Divine Image.

They asked Ben Azzai: “there are those that teach well, and perform well; there are others who perform well, but do not teach well. You, however, teach well, but do not perform well (for Ben Azzai died as a bachelor and childless).” Ben Azzai replied to them: “What should I do? My soul desires the Torah. The world can survive through other people.”

The Gemora in Bava Basra (158a) refers to Ben Azzai as the “Talmid chaver” of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai was considered somewhat of a disciple of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbeinu Gershom comments: Since Ben Azzai was a “bochur,” he was unable to comprehend halachic logic as well as Rabbi Akiva.

What is the connection between being a “bochur,” and not comprehending to the fullest extent?

I once heard from my Rosh Yeshiva, HaRav Chaim Schmelczer zt”l that Rabbeinu Gershom means that Ben Azzai was a bachelor, and one who is not married does not have the same level of contentment as one who is married. Torah study requires one to be at ease; one must have a menuchas hanefesh in order to comprehend the depths of the Torah. This is what Ben Azzai was lacking.

This is the explanation of our Gemora. One who is not married is akin to living without Torah. He may have more time for Torah study, but he is lacking the inner contentment which is a prerequisite for Torah.

Perhaps this can explain what caused Reb Wolf Eiger to celebrate the wedding of his nephew Reb Akiva Eiger even though the bride and the groom were not present; in fact, they were miles away. Reb Wolf understood that the marriage of Reb Akiva Eiger will result in his becoming the Reb Akiva Eiger that we know now. The wedding was not only a private joy for the families of the bride and groom, but rather, it was a simchas hatorah; a celebration in the honor of Torah. Reb Akiva Eiger’s Torah would spread throughout the world. This could be celebrated anywhere, even without the choson and kallah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 63 - Highlights

Rabbi Elozar said: A man that does not have a wife is not a complete man, as it is written [Breishis 5:2]: He created them male and female… and He called their name Man.

Rabbi Elozar also said: A man who does not own land is not a complete man, as it is written [Tehillim 115:16]: The heavens are the heavens of Hashem; but the earth He has given to man.

Rabbi Elozar also said: What is the meaning of the following verse [Breishis 2:18]: I will make him a helpmate opposite him? If a man is worthy, his wife will help him; if he is not worthy, she will be against him.

The Gemora cites an incident: Rabbi Yosi found Eliyahu; he said to him: It is written [ibid]: I will make him a helpmate. How does the wife help a man? He answered him: A man brings wheat. Does he chew the wheat in its raw state? If he brings home flax, does he wear the flax in its unprocessed state? (Obviously not; the wife prepares it for him.) Does she not therefore light his eyes and stand him up on his feet?

Rabbi Elozar also said: What is the meaning of the following verse [Breishis 2:22]: And the man said: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”? This teaches us that Adam cohabited with all the animals, and he was not appeased until he cohabited with Chavah.

Rabbi Elozar also said: What is the meaning of the following verse [Breishis 12:3]: And in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed? Hashem said to Avraham, “I have two good shoots to graft into you: Rus the Moabitess and Naamah the Ammonitess. All the families of the earth teaches us that even all the families who live in the earth will only be blessed on account of Israel. The verse [Breishis 18:18]: And all the nations of the earth is also teaching us that even the ships that journey between Galya and Spain will only be blessed on account of Israel.

Rabbi Elozar also said: In the future (times of Mashiach), all the craftsmen will become farmers, as it is written [Yechezkel 27:29]: And all that handle the oar, the mariners, and all the pilots of the sea, shall come down from their ships, they shall stand upon the land.

Rabbi Elozar also said: There is no form of livelihood lower than a farmer, as it is written (ibid): They shall come down (they will become poor). (63a)

The Gemora cites a related incident: Rabbi Elozar saw a piece of land that had cabbage planted widthwise. He said (to the land): “Even if you would have been planted lengthwise (the proper method), buying and selling would be more profitable than you.”

The Gemora relates a similar incident that occurred with Rav.

Rava said: If a person has one hundred zuz invested in business transactions, he will enjoy meat and wine every day. However, if has one hundred zuz invested in land, he will be forced to eat green sprouts of grain with salt. Furthermore, he will be compelled to lie down on the ground (to watch his grain) and fight with people regarding ownership issues.

The Gemora continues offering advice on financial matters and finding a suitable marriage partner. (63a)

Rabbi Elozar bar Avina said: Punishment comes to the world only because of Israel (in order that they should see and repent). (63a)

Rav was leaving Rabbi Chiya, and Rabbi Chiya said to him, “May Hashem save you from something that is worse than death.” Rav asked, “Is there actually something worse than death?” He went out and he found it: It is written [Koheles 7:26]: And I have found more bitter than death the woman etc.

The Gemora cites a related incident: Rav’s wife would constantly torment him. When he would ask her to cook him lentils, she would make him legumes, and when he asked for legumes, she would make him lentils. When his son, Chiya grew up, he reversed his father's requests, and the father would receive what he wanted. Once, his father said to him, “Your mother has improved.” Chiya replied, “It is I who has been switching what you requested.” Rav responded, “This is what people say, ‘Your child teach you wisdom.’ But you should not do so, for it is written [Yirmiyah 9:4]: They have trained their tongues to speak falsely.”

The Gemora cites a related incident: Rabbi Chiya’s wife would constantly torment him. Nevertheless, when he would find something, he would wrap it in a shawl and give it to her as a gift. Rav asked him: “Doesn’t she bother you?” Rabbi Chiya responded: “It is enough that they raise our children, and protect us from sinning.” (63a – 63b)

Rav Yehudah read the following verse to Rav Yitzchak, his son: And I have found more bitter than death the woman etc. Rav Yitzchak asked his father: “Who is such a woman?” Rav Yehudah replied, “Your mother.”

The Gemora asks: Didn’t Rav Yehudah teach his son elsewhere that a man finds gratification only with his first wife, and Rav Yitzchak asked him: “who is such a woman?” Rav Yehudah replied, “Your mother.”

The Gemora answers: She would get angry fast, but she was easily appeased. (63b)

The Gemora asks: What is the definition of a bad wife? Abaye answers: She prepares the table for him, but curses him until he eats. Rava said: She prepares the table for him, but then turns away from him. (63b)

In the West (Eretz Yisroel), they had the following custom: When a man would get married, they would ask of him: “Matza or motze?” The Gemora explains their inquiry. “Matza” is referring to a good wife; as it is written He who has found (matza) a wife has found goodness. “Motze” is referring to a bad wife; as it is written And I have found (u’motze) more bitter than death the woman. (63b)

Rava said: if one is married to a bad wife, it is a mitzvah to divorce her. (63b)

Rava also said: If one is married to a bad wife, and her kesuvah is excessive, he should marry another wife (this will entice the first wife to improve her ways). (63b)

It is written [Devarim 28:32]: Your sons and daughters will be given to another people. Rav Chanan bar Rava interpreted this verse in the name of Rav: This is referring to a stepmother. (63b)

It is written [Devarim 32:31]: With a vile nation, I shall anger them. Rav Chanan bar Rava interpreted this verse in the name of Rav: This is referring to a bad wife, and her kesuvah is excessive. Rabbi Eliezer said: This is referring to the heretics. We learned in a braisa: This is referring to the men of Barbary and Mauritania, who walk naked in the market. There is not a viler and revolting thing before Hashem than one who walks naked in the marketplace. Rabbi Yochanan said: This is referring to the Chabarim (evil Persians, who did not respect the Jewish people). (63b)

It is written in the Book of Ben Sira (This is an ancient work, part of the Apocrypha, written approximately 320 BCE. According to tradition, Ben Sira was a son of the prophet Yirmiyah.): “A good woman is a wonderful gift; she will be placed in the bosom of a God-fearing man. A bad wife is leprosy to her husband. What remedy does he have? Let him divorce her, and be healed from his leprosy.”

“A beautiful wife; fortunate is her husband; the number of his days will be doubled.”

“Turn away your eyes from your neighbors’ charming wife lest you be caught in her net. Do not turn to her husband to mingle with him, and drink wine and strong drink, for, through the form of a beautiful woman, many were destroyed, and her victims are many.”

“Many were the wounds of the spice-peddler, which lead him on to lewdness like a spark that lights the coal. As a coop is full of birds, so are (the harlots’) houses full of deceit.”

“Do not worry about tomorrow's trouble, for you know not what the day may beget. Tomorrow may come and you will be no more, and so you will have worried about a world which is not yours.”

“Keep away many from your house; and do not bring everyone into your house.” (63b)

Rav Assi said: “The son of David will not come until all the souls are vacated from guf.” (There exists a chamber in heaven that contains the souls created during the six days of creation. The mitzvah of procreation is to bring the souls out of guf and advance the coming of Mashiach. One who has children fulfills this obligation even if they subsequently die.)

It was taught in a braisa: Rabbi Eliezer said: Whoever does not occupy himself with the mitzvah of procreation is considered like a murderer.

Rabbi Yaakov said: It is as if he diminished the Divine Image.

Ben Azzai said: It is considered like a murderer and as if he diminished the Divine Image.

They asked Ben Azzai: “there are those that teach well, and perform well; there are others who perform well, but do not teach well. You, however, teach well, but do not perform well (for Ben Azzai died as a bachelor and childless).” Ben Azzai replied to them: “What should I do? My soul desires the Torah. The world can survive through other people.” (63b)

[END]

Read more!

More Food For Thought - Yevamos 62 - Daf Yomi

Some heoros on the Daf by Reb Ben:

This question may sound strange, but isn't there room to think that even Moshe, the greatest prophet, should be married to a woman? We always say that the beauty of Yiddishkeit is that we believe in marriage and bearing children, as this is part of our service of HaShem. I understand that Moshe needed to be constantly in a state of readiness to receive nevuah, but even the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur had a wife designated for him so that the dictum of vicheper baado uvead baiso could be fulfilled. Furthermore, would HaShem reveal Himself to Moshe even at times when He knew that it was not suitable for nevuah?

Why did Moshe make a kal vachomer from Pesach? If the luchos had to be broken, then break them. It seems like there was an issur to break the luchos. The Yerushalmi in Taanis states that since it says, vayispos , I grabbed, we infer that Moshe and HaShem struggled over the luchos but Moshe won out.

Tosfos quotes the Medrash that Tzipporah said, " woe to the wives of these, because from the day that HaShem spoke to Moshe, he separated from me. Did Tzipporah not understand that the nevuah of Moshe was different? Furthermore, if Tzipporah felt the same as Aharon and Moshe, why did she not get tzaraas? ( I think I once saw this question somewhere.)

It has always bothered me why we need a drasha from the word asher to learn yeiyasher kochacha sheshibarta. Yeiyasher means strength and asher means "that." Although we can suggest that the root is shur, wall, or the like, it would seem from the passuk that HaShem is just informing Moshe that he broke the luchos, not that he is giving him a haskama.

The students of Rabbi Akiva died between Pesach and Atzeres. Pesach is referred to in the Gemara as dabcha (like Zavcha) which means slaughter. Thus, the time period alludes to their death (Rabbi Akiva himself was actually slaughtered as the Gemara in Pesachim states that Rabbi Eliezer said regarding Rabbi Akiva, his dearth will be by slaughtering.) Atzeres means to refrain, as they stopped dying by Shavuos.

Rav Volhbe zt"l quoted sefarim (Probably Arizal) that state that HaShem fulfilled the dictum mentioned in our Gemara that one should be poked his wife before he goes on the road. Subsequent to the destruction of the first Bais HaMikdash, Hashem gave the Jewish People the prophecy of Yechezkel where he saw the merkavah. Subsequent to the destruction of the second Bais HaMikdash, we received the Zohar through Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.

Read more!

FULFILLING A MITZVAH AT THE TIME OF THE OBLIGATION - Yevamos 62 - Daf Yomi

The Gemora states: If he had children while he was an idolater, and then he converted; Rabbi Yochanan said: He has fulfilled his obligation of procreation (with the children born before his conversion). Rish Lakish said: He did not fulfill his obligation.

The Gemora in Rosh Hashanah (28a) states: They sent to the father of Shmuel a halacha that if the Persians forced someone to eat matzah on Pesach night, he has fulfilled his obligation.

The Gemora states further that if he was temporarily deranged at the time that he performed the mitzvah, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

The Turei Even asks from our Gemora: The idolater is not commanded in the mitzvah of procreation; how can the convert discharge his obligation with the children born to him at the time that he wasn’t obligated in the mitzvah?

The Minchas Chinuch (1:15) comments: Since the halachic ruling is that if one had children and they subsequently died, he has not discharged his obligation, it is apparent that the mitzvah is the having of children, cohabitation is only a preparatory action. Accordingly, we can answer the Turei Even’s question. One cannot discharhe his obligation for a mitzvah at a time that he is not obligated in the mitzvah, such as a deranged person eating matzah. This principle is only applicable if the mitzvah is the action; it must be performed at the time that he is obligated in the mitzvah. However, regarding a mitzvah where the action is only a preparation for the mitzvah, the principle would not apply. The idolater cohabited with a woman and had children; afterwards he converted. The mitzvah of procreation is having the children, and now that he is a Jew, he is fulfilling the mitzvah presently.

Read more!

FOOD FOR THOUGHT - Yevamos 62 - Daf Yomi

*** Rabbi Yochanan asked Rish Lakish: It is written [Melachim II 20:12]: At that time, Berodach-baladan son of Baladan, the king of Bavel, sent etc. (We see that an idolater is identified as the son of another idolater; this would seemingly be inconsistent with Rish Lakish’s viewpoint.)

Why did the Gemora use specifically this idolater’s name; there are many other names in the Torah, such as Balak ben Tzipor and others? What is the significance of mentioning Berodach-baladan son of Baladan?

*** Rav said: Everyone agrees that a slave does not have genealogical connections to their offspring, for it is written [Breishis 22:5]: Stay here by yourselves with the donkey. We understand that to mean that a slave is similar to a donkey.

Why would Avraham use such a seemingly derogatory language to his servant Eliezer and to his son Yishmael?

*** Rav Assi said: “The son of David will not come until all the souls are vacated from guf.” (There exists a chamber in heaven that contains the souls created during the six days of creation. The mitzvah of procreation is to bring the souls out of guf and advance the coming of Mashiach. One who has children fulfills this obligation even if they subsequently die.)

The Maharal writes that the souls which descend into this world before the Redemption are contained in a chamber called guf, body. This is because the souls residing in this world prior to the arrival of Mashiach have a connection to the body, the physical world. After the arrival of Mashiach, the souls will not be embedded inside the body; rather, they will be separate from the body.

*** Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students spread out from Gevas until Antiparis, and they all died during one period because they did not treat each other with respect.

Why does the Gemora say that there were twelve thousand pairs of students; it should have stated that there were twenty four thousand students?

Ben Yehoyadah answers: Rabbi Akiva observed that there was jealousy amongst them. He intentionally paired the younger students with the older ones in order that the younger disciples will be forced to respect those that were older than them. Nevertheless, it didn’t work, and they still didn’t honor each other.

Read more!

ASKARAH AMONGST GENTILES - Yevamos 62 - Daf Yomi

The Gemara in Shabbos (33a) offers various reasons for the disease known as Askarah, identified with diphtheria, a disease that affects the throat. One opinion maintains that Askarah comes because people do not separate Maaser. A second opinion states that Askarah comes because of slanderous speech.

The Gemara then quotes the opinion of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who maintains that Askarah comes because of the neglect of Torah study, and this is why the mouth is affected, because the mouth does not vocalize words of Torah. The Gemara challenges this opinion, as we find that women are also affected with this disease The Gemara resolves this challenge by stating that women are also susceptible to Askarah because they cause their husbands not to study Torah. The Gemara then questions this opinion from the fact that the disease also affects gentiles. The Gemara answers that gentiles are also affected with Askarah because they cause the Jews not to be able to study Torah. The Gemara then questions this opinion from the fact that children who are too young to study are afflicted with Askarah. The Gemara answers that children are afflicted with Askarah because they cause their fathers not to study Torah.

The difficulty with the Gemara is that according to the opinions that Askarah comes because of slanderous speech or because people do not separate Maaser, how do we understand why gentiles are affected with Askarah? Gentiles are not commanded to refrain from slanderous speech, nor are they commanded to separate Maaser.

The Ben Yehoyada answers that when one slanders someone else, the ensuing result may be bloodshed. A gentile is also prohibited from killing, so they are certainly liable for the end result of slanderous speech. Furthermore, if a Jew who does not separate Maaser is afflicted with Askarah, then it follows that a gentile who steals produce would be afflicted with the same disease. For this reason, the Gemara only challenges the opinion that maintains that Askarah comes because of neglect of Torah study.

The Maharsha suggest an alternative answer to this question. Gentiles have the option of refraining from slanderous speech and they can separate Maaser from their produce, although they are not obligated to do so. Regarding Torah study, however, a gentile is forbidden to study Torah, and if he studies Torah, the Gemara in Sanhedrin states that he is liable the death penalty.

by Reb Ben Adler top of the line promotions

Read more!

WHEN TORAH CONFLICTS WITH MARRIAGE - Yevamos 62 - Daf Yomi

Reb Elchonon in Kovetz Shiurim (Chelek Beis Siman 19) brings a Rambam that says: If one is learning and is concerned that getting married will interfere with his learning, he may delay getting married, because one who is involved in a mitzvah is exempt from doing another mitzvah and even more so, by learning Torah.

Reb Elchonon asks based on a Gemora in Moed Katan (9a) that a mitzvah that cannot be done by others, one is obligated to stop learning in order to do the mitzvah, and we don't say under those circumstances, since he is already involved in one mitzvah, he shouldn’t be obliged to perform the other mitzvah. Why does the Rambam rule that one who is learning Torah is exempt from the mitzvah of marrying; marriage is a mitzvah that only he can perform?

He answers that the fact that he is able to delay the performance of the mitzvah, and later on, he will perform it, that is tantamount to a mitzvah that others are able to perform. Regarding such mitzvos, we can apply the principle of osek b’mitzvah patur min hamitzvah, since he is preoccupied with the mitzvah of learning Torah, he is temporarily exempt from the mitzvah of marriage.

He continues that the mitzvah of learning Torah is incumbent on a person only when he is free from his life obligations, such as sleeping, eating, working for his family’s sustenance and taking care of his bodily functions.

by Rabbi Eliezer Jacobovits

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 62 - Highlights

The Mishna states: A man should not abstain from procreation unless he already has children.

Beis Shamai maintains that one fulfills the mitzvah of procreation by fathering two males. Beis Hillel holds that he must father a male and a female as it is written: [Breishis 5:2]: He created them male and female. (61b)

The Gemora infers from the Mishna that he may never abstain from taking a wife, even if he has children.

This would support Rav Nachman’s teaching in the name of Shmuel: Even if a man has many children, he shall not remain without a wife, as it is written [Breishis 2:19]: It is not good that man be alone.

The Gemora offers another version of the above discussion. One might infer from the Mishna that if a man has children, he may abstain from getting married.

The Gemora asks: Wouldn’t this inference refute the teaching of Rav Nachman in the name of Shmuel?

The Gemora answers: No! It is not a refutation. The Mishna means as follows: If a man does not have children, he must marry a woman capable of bearing children; if he already has children, he may marry any woman, even one that is not capable of bearing children.

The Gemora states: If a man does not have children, he would be permitted to sell a Sefer Torah in order to marry a woman capable of bearing children. (61b)

The Gemora asks: what is Beis Shamai’s reason?

The Gemora answers: He derives the guidelines of this mitzvah from Moshe. Moshe had two sons, and afterwards abstained from engaging in relations with his wife. It is evident that one fulfills the mitzvah of procreation by fathering two male sons.

Beis Hillel learned from the creation of the world, in which there was only a male and a female created.

The Gemora asks: Why doesn’t Beis Shamai learn from the creation of the world?

The Gemora answers: We cannot derive a case where there are alternative possibilities from a case where there were no alternative possibilities (the world had to begin with a male and a female).

The Gemora asks: Why doesn’t Beis Hillel learn from the children of Moshe?

The Gemora answers: Moshe acted in this manner based on his own understanding (and other man cannot learn from this).

The Gemora cites a braisa: Three things Moshe did of his own understanding, and the Holy One, blessed be He, gave His approval: He separated himself from his wife, he broke the Tablets and he added one day (to the days of abstinence prior to the Giving of the Torah).

The Gemora explains each one: He separated himself from his wife. What was his rationale? He said: If the Israelites, with whom the Shechinah spoke only momentarily, and He appointed them a designated time, yet the Torah said [Shmos 19:15]: Do not draw near to a woman, I, with whom the Shechinah speaks at all times and does not designate for me a specific time, how much more so (that I should separate from my wife)!

And how do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave His approval? Because it is written [Devarim 5:27 – 28]: Go say to them: “Return to your tents,” but as for you, stand here with me.

He broke the Tables. What was his rationale? He said: If the Passover sacrifice, which is but one of the six hundred and thirteen commandments, yet the Torah said [Shmos 12:43]: No estranged person shall eat of it. Here, where the entire Torah is being given, and the Israelites are apostates, how much more so (they are unfit for the Torah)!

And how do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave His approval? Because it is written [Shmos 34:1]: The Tablets that you broke. Rish Lakish interpreted this: Your strength shall be true because you broke it.

He added one day of his own understanding. What was his rationale? It is written [Shmos 19:10]: Sanctify them today and tomorrow. “Today” must be like “tomorrow.” Jjust as “tomorrow” includes the preceding night, so too, “today” must include the preceding night, but the night of “today” has already passed! Learn from this that it must be two days besides today.

And how do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave His approval? Since the Shechinah did not rest upon Mount Sinai until the Shabbos (after the day that Moshe added). (61B - 62a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Nosson said: Beis Shamai maintains that one fulfills the mitzvah of procreation by fathering two males and two females. Beis Hillel holds that he must father a male and a female.

The Gemora cites a Scriptural source for Beis Shamai’s viewpoint. (62a)

The Gemora cites another braisa: Rabbi Nosson said: Beis Shamai maintains that one fulfills the mitzvah of procreation by fathering one male and one female. Beis Hillel holds that he must father either a male or a female.

Rava explains Beis Hillel’s opinion: It is written [Yeshaya 45:18]: He created the world not to lie empty; he formed it to be inhabited. By fathering one child, he has fulfilled his obligation of causing habitation in the world. (62a)

The Gemora states: If he had children while he was an idolater, and then he converted;
Rabbi Yochanan said: He has fulfilled his obligation of procreation (with the children born before his conversion). Rish Lakish said: He did not fulfill his obligation.

The Gemora explains: Rabbi Yochanan maintains that he has fulfilled his obligation because he had children. Rish Lakish holds that he did not fulfill his obligation because a convert is like a newborn baby.

The Gemora states that Rabbi Yochanan and Rish Lakish follow their respective opinions regarding a different matter. If he had children while he was an idolater, and then he converted;
Rabbi Yochanan said: He cannot have in the future a firstborn son in regards to inheritance laws because he already had a child. Rish Lakish maintains that he can still have a firstborn son because a convert is like a newborn baby. (62a)

Rabbi Yochanan asked Rish Lakish: It is written [Melachim II 20:12]: At that time, Berodach-baladan son of Baladan, the king of Bavel, sent etc. (We see that an idolater is identified as the son of another idolater; this would seemingly be inconsistent with Rish Lakish’s viewpoint.)

Rish Lakish responded: While they are idolaters, they have genealogical connections to their offspring; once they convert, they lose that connection. (62a)

Rav said: Everyone agrees that a slave does not have genealogical connections to their offspring, for it is written [Breishis 22:5]: Stay here by yourselves with the donkey. We understand that to mean that a slave is similar to a donkey. (62a)

The Gemora states: If a man had children and they died; Rav Huna said: He has fulfilled the obligation of procreation. Rabbi Yochanan said: He did not fulfill the obligation of procreation.

The Gemora explains: Rav Huna said that he fulfilled the obligation of procreation because of Rav Assi, who said: “The son of David will not come until all the souls are vacated from guf.” (There exists a chamber in heaven that contains the souls created during the six days of creation. The mitzvah of procreation is to bring the souls out of guf and advance the coming of Mashiach. One who has children fulfills this obligation even if they subsequently die.) Rabbi Yochanan said that he did not fulfill the obligation of procreation because he did not cause habitation in the world.

The Gemora asks on Rav Huna from the following braisa: Grandchildren are regarded as children. (The meaning of this braisa seems to be that he will fulfill his obligation of procreation by having grandchildren even if his children died; this is inconsistent with Rav Huna’s opinion, who maintains that having children is sufficient even if they died.)

The Gemora answers: The braisa is referring to a case where he has a son, but no daughter. If the son has a daughter, the grandfather will have fulfilled his obligation to father a male and a female.

They asked on Rav Huna from a different braisa: Grand children are regarded as children. If one of the children died or was found to be a saris, he did not fulfill the obligation of procreation.
This is indeed a valid refutation of Rav Huna. (62a – 62b)

The braisa had stated: Grand children are regarded as children. Originally, Abaye thought that a grandson will be reckoned in the place of a son, a granddaughter will be reckoned in the place of a daughter, and certainly a grandson will be reckoned in the place of a daughter, but a granddaughter will not be reckoned for a son. Rava told him: The obligation is to cause habitation in the world, and that has been accomplished. (62b)

Everyone agrees that two grandchildren from one child are not sufficient to fulfill the mitzvah. (Each deceased child must leave offspring.)

The Gemora asks: But the Rabbis told Rav Sheishes to get married and have sons. He responded that the sons of his daughter are like his sons.

The Gemora answers: Rav Sheishes was merely pushing them off since he had become sterile due to Rav Huna’s discourses (which were very lengthy, and Rav Huna forced himself not to leave in the middle to take care of his bodily functions; this resulted in sterility). (62b)

The Gemora cites the Scriptural source teaching us that grandchildren are regarded as children. (62b)

The Mishna had stated: A man should not abstain from procreation unless he already has children.

The Gemora states that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion. We have learned in a braisa: Rabbi Yehoshua said: If one married a wife while he was young (and then she died), he should marry again when he is old. If a man had children when he was young, he should still attempt to have more children when he is old. It is written [Koheles 11:6]: In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not idle, for you cannot know which shall prosper, whether this or that, or whether they both shall be equally good.

Rabbi Akiva expounded this verse differently: One who learned Torah when he was young should still learn when he is old. One who had students when he was young should have students when he is old as well.

Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students spread out from Gevas until Antiparis, and they all died during one period because they did not treat each other with respect. The world was left desolate of Torah until Rabbi Akiva journeyed to our Rabbis in the south and taught them. They were: Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Yosi, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elozar ben Shamua. They were the ones who reestablished the Torah.

A Tanna said: They all died between Pesach and Shavuos. Rav Chama bar Abba said: They all died a horrible death. What was it? Rav Nachman said: Askerah (identified with diphtheria, a disease that affects the throat).

Rav Masneh said: The halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua. (62b)

Rabbi Tanchum said in the name of Rabbi Chanilai: A man who does not have a wife lives without happiness, without blessing, and without goodness.

In the West (Eretz Yisroel) they would say: (A man who does not have a wife lives) without Torah, and without a protective wall.

Rava bar Ula said: (A man who does not have a wife lives) without peace. (62b)

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anyone who knows about his wife that she is God-fearing and does not visit her conjugally is called a sinner.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A man is required to visit his wife conjugally his wife at the time that he sets out on a journey.

Rav Yosef explained: This is only necessary to teach us in the case where it is close to her period (where normally, one should not have marital relations then). The Sages said that a man is required to separate from his wife close to her period.
And how close? Rava said: A period of time (a full daytime or nighttime).

And these words were said only where he sets out for his own purposes on a journey, but if he is leaving because of a religious obligation, he is not required because he is preoccupied. (62b)

It was taught in a braisa: If one loves his wife like himself and he honors her more than himself, and he guides his sons and daughters in the proper path, and he marries them off close to their time of puberty, upon him, the Scripture states [Iyov 5:24]: And you will know that your tent is at peace.

The braisa continues: If one loves his neighbors and draws his relatives close, and he marries his sister's daughter, and he lends a pauper money at his time of need, upon him, the Scripture states [Yeshaya 58:9]: Then you will call and Hashem will respond; you will cry out and he will say, “Here I am.” (62b – 63a)

[END]

Read more!

Beilis Blood Libel - Rabbi Meir Shapiro's Response - Yevamos 61 - Daf Yomi

The following story is printed in the Sefer Margaliyos HaShas amongst others and the text of the entire story can be found here: shemayisrael

The Beilis Affair shook the ground under those Jews who had thought that the modern world was a more rational one, a world in which outrageous accusations might be levied but would certainly not gain credence. When Mendel Beilis was brought to trial for a blood libel accusation, it seemed that the progress of a century would be completely wiped away in an instant.

Jews around the world were stirred to action. There was also an outpouring of sympathy from non Jews who recognized the injustice and absurdity of the accusations. A progressive newspaper in Germany reported that libels that echo with the style and content of the darkest medieval times are being hurled against the Jewish minority in Russia. Diplomats, statesmen and other men of prominence urged the Russian government to retreat from this bizarre enterprise. But against this flood of outrage, the anti-Semites of the world only strengthened and increased their own accusations.

The Jewish world was in turmoil. In congregations around the globe, special daily prayers were instituted for the deliverance of Beilis and all the Jewish people. Community leaders, rabbis, chassidic rebbes and influential activists became involved. The Chazon Ish was an active participant in the fight, as were Rabbi Meir Shapiro, the Lubliner Rav, the Lubavitcher Rebbe and the Chortkover Rebbe. The main thrust of their efforts was ambitious. They sought not only to clear Beilis of the unfounded charges but also to uproot the very idea of the blood libel.

The lawyer that headed the defense team was the legendary Oscar Gruzenberg. He knew that the prosecutions attack was going to be directed against the Talmud and other works of Jewish scholarship and that the expertise in devising a defense would have to be provided by the rabbis. Rabbi Mazeh, Chief Rabbi of Moscow, was chosen to head the rabbinic advisory team for the defense.

On October 8, 1913, right after Yom Kippur, the trial opened. The long-awaited spectacle was now under way. Jew and non-Jew in Russia and around the world awaited the outcome with breathless anticipation.

As the trial began, the indictment accused Menachem Mendel the son of Tuviah Beilis, 39, of having murdered together with other people, not discovered, under duress of mysterious religious obligations and rituals, one Andrei Yustchinsky.

The twelve jurors were carefully chosen; their identities and ideologies had been thoroughly prepared prior to the charade of the trial. The first witnesses testified to such blatant lies that the defense lawyer did not even feel compelled to discredit their testimonies. These preliminary stages were clearly a farce, and the audience, near and far, waited for the real trial to begin. At last, the parade of experts began. And the trial became an examination of the Talmud's view on various issues.

What does the Talmud say about the place from which the soul exits the body?

Is it correct that the Talmud states that stealing from a gentile is permissible?

The constant refrain was about the Talmud. There, in the depths of the main courthouse of Kiev, all one could hear was Talmud. The prosecutor was prepared with an avalanche of quotes from the Halachic (legal) and the Aggadic (homiletic) portions of the Talmud. Anti-Semites around the world had done their homework and had rallied to the cause of condemning the Jewish people and the Jewish religion in a court of law.

The crucial question was posed: How dare the Jewish sages claim that [the Jewish people] are called adam, man, while the idol worshippers are not called adam?

The illustrious Rabbi Meir Shapiro was then the Rabbi of Galina. (Later, he would establish and serve as the head of the famous yeshivah of Lublin, and he would also institute the Daf Yomi.) When Rabbi Shapiro heard about attacks against the Talmud, he understood that the Talmud was being accused of inciting Jew against non-Jew. Rabbi Shapiro sent off a very clear letter to Rabbi Mazeh dealing with this accusation. He told him to explain to the court that a very important insight into the nature of the Jewish people is revealed in this Talmudic quote.

The Torah states, he wrote, that kol Yisrael areivim zeh lazeh, all Jews are responsible for each other. (Shevuos 39) According to this principle, it stands to reason that the fate of Mendel Beilis, for example, which is in essence the fate of one single Jew, nevertheless touches the entire Jewish people. The Jewish people tremble for his welfare and would do everything in their power to remove the prisoner's collar from him. What would have been the reaction of the gentile world if one specific gentile had been accused of a similar crime and was standing trial in a faraway country? Clearly, no more than the people of his own town would show any interest in the libel. Perhaps, at most, people in other parts of his own country would criticize the proceedings. But people in other countries? They certainly wouldn't take a personal interest in him.

This, therefore, is the difference between the Jewish people and all other peoples. The Jews are considered adam, the singular form of the word man, an indication of the extreme solidarity of the Jewish people. For us, when one Mendel Beilis is put on trial, the entire Jewish world stands at his side like one man. Not so the other peoples of the world. They may very well be considered anashim, the plural form of the word man, but they cannot be considered adam, a nation that stands together as a single man.

There is no way of knowing which particular effort of which particular rabbis may have had some impact on the trial. All in all, however, the concerted efforts of the Jews bore out the interpretation of Rabbi Meir Shapiro that you [the Jewish people] are called adam, for the Jews did set aside their internal differences and stood together as one man until the verdict of not guilty was returned.

Read more!

ADAM - UNITY - Yevamos 61 - Daf Yomi

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said: The graves of idolaters do not transmit tumah through the roof (if the tumah source and a person or object is under the same roof). He cites a Scriptural source to prove this point. It is written [Yechezkel 34:31]: Now you my sheep, the sheep of my pasture; you are adam. You, Israel, are referred to as “Adam,” man, but an idolater is not regarded as “Adam.” (The word “Adam” is the term used in the Torah regarding the laws of tumah by way of a roof; thus we see that the grave of an idolater does not transmit this tumah.)

The Ol’los Efraim says that there are four names for man; Adam, Gever, Enosh and Ish. Each of them can be written in a singlular form as well as in a plural form. However, the term “Adam” can only be written in a singular form. He explains this with our Gemora. Only a Jew is referred to as Adam, not an idolater. Klal Yisroel has the quality of achdus, uniting as one; therefore only we can be called Adam.

Using this principle, we can answer a famous question. It is written [Koheles 12:13]: The end of the matter, all having been heard: fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is the whole man. The Shalah comments that the verse fear God is referring to the negative prohibitions; the verse and keep His commandments is referring to the positive commandments; and the verse for this is the whole man is the essence of man, the two hundred and forty eight limbs and the three hundred and sixty five veins, which are corresponding to the two hundred and forty eight positive commandments and the three hundred and sixty five negative prohibitions.

There are those that ask: If so, it is impossible for any single individual to be complete; it is impossible to fulfill all six hundred and thirteen mitzvos. Some mitzvos are only applicable to a Kohen; some are unique to a Levi; others are only to a Yisroel; men have mitzvos that are only relevant to them, and women have their special mitzvos. How can a person be considered complete?

Perhaps the answer is because Klal Yisroel is Adam. We are all united. One person’s performance of a mitzvah effects everyone else. If everyone does their particular mitzvah, Klal Yisroel can be regarded as being complete.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 61 - Highlights

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said: The graves of idolaters do not transmit tumah through the roof (if the tumah source and a person or object is under the same roof). He cites a Scriptural source to prove this point. It is written [Yechezkel 34:31]: Now you my sheep, the sheep of my pasture; you are adam. You, Israel, are referred to as “Adam,” man, but an idolater is not regarded as “Adam.” (The word “Adam” is the term used in the Torah regarding the laws of tumah by way of a roof; thus we see that the grave of an idolater does not transmit this tumah.)

The Gemora asks: It is written [Bamidbar 31:19]: Whoever killed a person or touched a corpse, purify yourselves. Moshe instructed the soldiers returning from battle with the Midianites to purify themselves; it is evident that an idolater can transmit tumah?

The Gemora answers: Perhaps one of the Jews was killed in battle, and it was due to his corpse that they were required to purify themselves.

The Gemora asks: Why did the Rabbis assume that the only source of tumah was from the idolaters?

The Gemora answers: It is written [ibid :49]: Not a man of us is missing. This would indicate that there were no Jewish casualties.

The Gemora asks: How does Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai interpret this verse?

The Gemora answered: The verse is stating that no Jew died because of sin (they did not succumb to the temptation of the Midianite women), but they could have died as a casualty of war.

Ravina offers an alternative answer to the original question: Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai ruled that the grave of an idolater cannot transmit tumah by way of a roof, but they can transmit tumah through touching or carrying. (60b – 61a)

The Mishna states: If a Kohen performed erusin with a widow and then he was appointed the Kohen Gadol, he is permitted to marry her. There was an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla who betrothed Marta bas Baitos, who was a widow. The king then appointed him the Kohen Gadol, and then he married her.

If a woman awaiting yibum fell for yibum to an ordinary Kohen, and then he was appointed the Kohen Gadol, even if he performed ma’amar, he should not marry her. (61a)

The Gemora cites the Scriptural sources for the Mishna’s halachos. (61a)

The Mishna had recorded an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla. The Gemora infers that the king appointed him the Kohen Gadol, but his brothers, the Kohanim, and the Sanhedrin did not appoint him.

Rav Yosef said: I recognize a conspiracy here, for Rav Assi said: Marta the daughter of Baitos gave golden dinarim to King Yannai in order that Yehoshua ben Gamla should be appointed the Kohen Gadol (although he wasn’t the most deserving from all the Kohanim). (61a)

The Mishna states: A Kohen Gadol whose brother died, the Kohen Gadol should perform chalitzah, but not yibum. (61a)

The Gemora infers that this halacha is applicable whether she falls for yibum from a state of erusin or nisuin. The Gemora asks: It is understandable why he can’t perform a yibum if she falls for yibum from a state of nisuin; there is a positive commandment to marry a virgin besides for the negative prohibition against marrying a widow. The positive commandment of yibum cannot override both commandments. However, if she falls for yibum from a state of erusin, there is merely a negative prohibition against marrying a widow; why don’t we say that the positive commandment of yibum should override this prohibition and we should permit the Kohen Gadol to perform a yibum?

The Gemora answers that there is a Rabbinical decree prohibiting this. They decreed that he should not perform the first act of cohabitation (where he would be fulfilling the mitzvah) because we are concerned that he might perform a second act (where he would not be fulfilling the mitzvah, and therefore it would be forbidden). (61a)

The Mishna states: A Kohen should not marry an aylonis (an adult woman who did not develop any signs of female puberty and is incapable of bearing children) unless he has another wife or he already has children. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that he is prohibited from marrying an aylonis even if he has another wife or children because she is the zonah that the Torah refers to. The Chachamim say: A zonah is a female convert, a freed slavewoman, or one who engaged in an illicit act of cohabitation. (61a)

The Reish Gilusa asked Rav Huna: What is the reason that a kohen should not marry an aylonis? It is probably because there is a mitzvah of procreation. If so, the prohibition should apply by a Yisroel as well; why does the Mishna only mention a Kohen?

Rav Huna replied: Since the Mishna wanted to mention Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion which is only applicable to a Kohen, the first part of the Mishna specified Kohen even though it applies to a Yisroel as well. (61a – 61b)

Rav Huna explains the rationale of Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion. Cohabitation with a woman who is incapable of bearing children is regarded as a promiscuous cohabitation, and that is why Rabbi Yehudah considers an aylonis to be a zonah. (61b)

The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Eliezer said: A kohen should not marry a minor.

Rav Chisda said to Rabbah: Go out and analyze the reason for this ruling because in the evening, Rav Huna will ask of you regarding it. He went out and analyzed it (and said the following). Rabbi Eliezer is following the opinion of Rabbi Meir and the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. He holds like Rabbi Meir, who is concerned on account of the minority (and perhaps the minor is an aylonis), and he holds like Rabbi Yehudah who considers an aylonis to be a zonah.

The Gemora challenges Rabbah’s explanation: How can you say that Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Rabbi Meir? Didn’t we learn the following braisa: Rabbi Meir said: A minor boy or girl does not perform chalitzah or yibum. The Rabbis replied to Rabbi Meir: That which you said that a minor should not perform chalitzah is understandable because the Torah uses the term “ish,” man in the portion regarding chalitzah, and we compare the laws of a man to a woman. However, what is your rationale for saying that a minor should not perform a yibum?

Rabbi Meir responded: A minor boy should not perform a yibum because we are concerned that he might be found to be a saris (he cannot father a child due to defects in his body); a minor girl should not perform a yibum because we are concerned that she might be found to be an aylonis. If they would perform yibum, it would be tantamount to cohabiting with an ervah.

We learned in a different braisa the following: Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a minor girl may be taken in yibum, but she should not submit to chalitzah. (It emerges that Rabbi Eliezer does not subscribe to Rabbi Meir’s concerns for a minority.)

The Gemora continues challenging Rabbah’s explanation: How can you say that Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Rabbi Yehudah? Didn’t we learn the following braisa: What is a zonah? Rabbi Eliezer said: An adulteress. Rabbi Akiva said: A woman who cohabits indiscriminately to any man. Rabbi Masya ben Chorosh said: Even if her husband was bringing her to drink the bitter waters (he suspected her of committing adultery), and he cohabited with her on the way (a relatively minor transgression), she is rendered a zonah. Rabbi Yehudah said: A woman who is an aylonis. The Chachamim said: A zonah is a female convert, a freed slavewoman, or one who engaged in an illicit act of cohabitation. Rabbi Elozar said: An unmarried man who cohabits with an unmarried woman without intending for marriage has rendered her a zonah. (It is obvious that Rabbi Eliezer does not follow Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion in regards to zonah.) (61b)

Rav Ada bar Ahavah said (to explain Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion of prohibiting a kohen from marrying a minor): He is discussing a Kohen Gadol. When does he acquire her? Only after she becomes an adult; at that time she is not a virgin any longer.

Rava disagrees vehemently with this explanation: Destroyer of the mind! If her father married her to the Kohen Gadol, she is his wife immediately. If she married herself off, would you think that only Rabbi Eliezer prohibits this marriage and not the Rabbis; everyone would concede that this is forbidden? (61b)

Rava explains Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion: He is discussing an ordinary Kohen, and he was concerned that she will be seduced by another man while she is married to the Kohen.

The Gemora asks: If so, let us prohibit even a Yisroel from marrying a minor girl?

The Gemora answers: Seducing a minor girl is considered violation (as if he forced her), and a woman who has been violated is permitted to a Yisroel. (61b)

Rav Pappa offers another explanation: He follows the opinion mentioned in a braisa that a Kohen Gadol is only permitted to marry a na’arah, not a minor, and not a bogeres. (61b)

Rabbi Elozar’s opinion was mentioned in the braisa above: An unmarried man who cohabits with an unmarried woman without intending for marriage has rendered her a zonah.

Rav Amram said: The halacha does not follow Rabbi Elozar’s opinion. (61b)

[END]

Read more!

POWERS OF THE TZITZ - Yevamos 60 - Daf Yomi

Rav Chana bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon the Pious: The Midianite women were passed before the tzitz (the golden plate worn on the forehead of the Kohen Gadol). Any woman whose face turned sickly was determined to be fit for cohabitation; any woman whose face did not turn sickly was determined to be too young for cohabitation.

Rav Nachman said: A symptom of sin is hydrokan (a bloating of the stomach).

Rashi states that this was a miracle.

Later on, the Gemora asks regarding the women of Yaveish-Gilad: Why didn’t they pass the women (to determine if they cohabited with a man or not) before the tzitz?

The Acharonim discuss several questions:

1) How would they be permitted to rely on a miracle?

2) How did they know that the tzitz could ascertain if the women cohabited or not; perhaps it can only determine if the women were fit for cohabitation?

3) Why would the Midianite women turn sickly if they were only fit for cohabitation; they didn’t sin yet?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 60 - Highlights

The Gemora cites a braisa: A Kohen Gadol may not marry a woman that he himself violated or seduced, but if he married her, they are married. He may not marry a woman that someone else violated or seduced, and if he married her, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: The child born from such a union is a chalal (disqualified from Kehunah). The Chachamim maintain that the child is legitimate.

The braisa had stated: But if he married her, they are married. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: He is required to divorce her.

The Gemora asks: Doesn’t the braisa mean that he may remain married to her?

Rav Acha bar Yaakov answers: The braisa means that he does not have to pay the fine for seducing the woman. (One who seduces a woman is required to marry her or pay fifty shekalim. The Kohen Gadol is not required to pay the penalty if he marries her; however, he is still required to divorce her.)

Rav Geviha from Kasil went and said over Rav’s ruling before Rav Ashi. Rav Ashi asked him: Didn’t Rav and Rabbi Yochanan state that a Kohen Gadol may not marry a bogeres or a woman who was injured by a piece of wood, but if he married her, they are married. The Gemora explains the logic: A Kohen Gadol may remain married to the bogeres because anyway, she will eventually become a bogeres with him. A Kohen Gadol may remain married to the woman who was injured by a piece of wood because she will eventually become a woman who was injured by a piece of wood (she will lose her virginity) with him. Here too, in the case where the Kohen Gadol married the woman he had previously seduced, he should be permitted to remain married to her because she will eventually cohabit with him?

The Gemora remains with a difficulty. (59b – 60a)

The braisa had stated: He may not marry a woman that someone else violated or seduced, and if he married her, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: The child born from such a union is a chalal (disqualified from Kehunah). The Chachamim maintain that the child is legitimate.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: The halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. Rav Gidel also said in the name of Rav: The halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

Others said: Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: What is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s reason? It is because he holds like Rabbi Elozar who maintains that an unmarried man who cohabits with an unmarried woman without intending for marriage has rendered her a zonah. (This explains why the child is a chalal.)

The Gemora asks: Can it be that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov agrees with Rabbi Elozar? But we have an established principle that the teachings of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov are few but clean, and yet Rav Amram said that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Elozar’s opinion?

The Gemora remains with a difficulty. (60a)

Rav Ashi explains their argument differently. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov maintains that a chalal can result from cohabitation with a woman that is subject to a positive commandment (the mitzvah that a Kohen Gadol should marry a virgin). The Chachamim disagree. The Gemora cites Scriptural sources for their respective opinions. (60a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: If a Kohen has a sister who died as an arusah; Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah maintain that the Kohen may contaminate himself to her (one of the seven relatives that the torah permits the Kohen to contaminate himself for is his virgin sister). Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon disagree.

If the sister was violated or seduced, they all agree that the Kohen may not contaminate himself to her.

If the woman was injured by a piece of wood, he may not contaminate himself to her; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon, for Rabbi Shimon used to say: A woman who is fit for a Kohen Gadol, her brother, the Kohen, may contaminate himself to her; however, a woman who is disqualified for a Kohen Gadol, her brother, the Kohen, may not contaminate himself to her.

The braisa concludes: Everyone agrees that he may contaminate himself to his sister, who died as a bogeres.

The Gemora cites the Scriptural sources for all these halachos. (60a – 60b)

The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said: If a girl under three years old converts, she is qualified for the Kehunah. (We do not consider her a zonah because cohabitation under three years of age is not legally regarded as cohabitation.) He cites Scriptural proof for this. It is written [Bamidbar 31:18]: But all the children among the women who have not known cohabitation with a male, spare for yourselves. (It emerges that some of the Midianite girls taken in captive were permitted to be taken as wives by the Jewish soldiers.) The Gemora states: Pinchas the Kohen was among them, and he was included in this permission.

The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, and they understand the verse to be referring to female slaves (to be taken as wives for their male slaves).

The Gemora asks: According to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, permission should be granted even if they are older than three years of age; the verse does not specify under three?

The Gemora answers: The verses are understood according to Rav Huna’s interpretation. There is an apparent contradiction in the verses regarding which of the Midianite girls should be killed, and which should be spared. Rav Huna explains: Any girl who is fit for cohabitation should be killed, and only if she was not fit for cohabitation, namely, if she is under three years of age, should she be spared.

The Gemora wonders: How did the Jews know who were old enough for cohabitation and who were not old enough?

Rav Chana bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon the Pious: The Midianite women were passed before the tzitz (the golden plate worn on the forehead of the Kohen Gadol). Any woman whose face turned sickly was determined to be fit for cohabitation; any woman whose face did not turn sickly was determined to be too young for cohabitation.

Rav Nachman said: A symptom of sin is hydrokan (a bloating of the stomach). (60b)

The Gemora relates a similar incident: It is written [Shoftim 21:12]: They found among the inhabitants of Yaveish-Gilad four hundred virgin girls who had not known a man by cohabitation with a male. (From Torah.org “The Three Weeks”: In Shoftim (Judges) 19-20, we find the incident of the "Pilegesh in Giv'ah." A man was traveling with his concubine (Pilegesh, in Hebrew) and servant back to his home. As evening approached, the group of travelers arrived in the city of Giv'ah, in the territory of the tribe of Benjamin, hoping to find a place to stay. Only one old man offered to put the group up.

He brought them to his home, and offered them and their donkeys food and drink. As the guests were refreshing themselves, wicked people from the city began banging on the door of the house, demanding that the old man send out the male guests from his house. The old man went out to the crowd, and tried to appease them by offering his own daughter and the man's concubine. He pleaded with them not to do anything disgraceful. The crowd took away the concubine. When she returned the next morning, after being assaulted, she collapsed and died on the old man's doorstep. In the morning, the man discovered his concubine was dead. He took her body with him back home. He then cut her body into 12 pieces, sending each tribe of Israel a piece, to inform them of the abomination that occurred.

The whole nation was in an uproar and disgusted by what had happened. Over 400,000 warriors from all tribes gathered to eradicate this evil. The group demanded from the tribe of Benjamin that the evil men of Giv'ah be turned over, but the tribe refused and joined with the inhabitants of Giv'ah to battle against the rest of the nation. On the first two days of the battle, the unified tribes suffered severe casualties. The tribes then offered sacrifices, prayed, cried, and fasted, asking Hashem for His assistance. They asked the Kohen Gadol what should be done. He responded that on the next day, the tribe of Benjamin would be delivered into the hands of the rest of the nation. That is what happened.

After this incident, the tribes swore that they would not let any man from the tribe of Benjamin marry their daughters.

It was later discovered that the people of Yaveish-Gilad did not participate in this war. A battalion was sent to capture the city. The women who had never cohabited were spared in order for the men of Benjamin to take them as wives.)

The Gemora asks: How did they determine which women cohabited and which did not?

Rav Kahana answered: They placed them on the opening of a barrel of wine. If she wasn’t a virgin, they would be able to smell the wine on her breath (the aroma went through her); if she was a virgin, her breath would not smell.

The Gemora asks: Why didn’t they pass the women before the tzitz?

Rav Kahana the son of Rav Nosson said: The tzitz would only be used for favor, and not for punishment.

The Gemora asks: If so, they should not have used the tzitz by Midian either?

Rav Ashi answered: This principle is only applicable to Jews; not for idolaters. (60b)

[END]

Read more!