YIBUM WITH RUS - Yevamos 77 - Daf Yomi

The Gemora relates the episode with Shaul, Doeg and Avner. Doeg the Edomite said to Shaul: “Instead of enquiring whether he is fit to be king or not, enquire rather whether he is permitted to enter the congregation or not.” What is the reason that he shouldn’t be permitted to enter into the congregation? It is because he descends from Rus, the Moabite. Avner said to him: “We learned in a braisa: An Ammonite is prohibited, but not a female Ammonite; A Moabite is prohibited, but not a female Moabite.”

The Maharsha asks: How could Doeg have thought that Boaz, the Head of the Sanhedrin, the Judge of all of Israel for many years would conduct himself improperly and publicly marry a woman who was forbidden to him? Furthermore, why did Ploni Almoni say to Boaz: “I cannot marry Rus because I am concerned that my children will be tainted”? He should have said that he can’t marry her because he is forbidden to marry an Ammonite woman (according to him)?

The Maharsha answers: The Gemora above (20b) explained the reason why a brother may not perform a yibum with his brother’s wife in a case when she is forbidden to him by a negative prohibition. The Gemora asks: Shouldn’t the positive commandment of yibum override the prohibition? The Gemora answers: He may not perform a yibum in this case because only the first act of cohabitation is permitted (that is the mitzvah of yibum), but not the second act. We are concerned that he might cohabitate with her a second time, which would be forbidden.

The Maharsha says that perhaps this Rabbinic ordinance was not yet in effect in the times of Boaz, and it was permitted to perform a yibum on a women who was forbidden to the brother by a negative prohibition.

The Ramban in Breishis (38:8) states: In the times of our Patriarchs, they would perform the mitzvah of yibum even with other relatives; not only a brother’s wife.

Ploni Almoni (Rus’ closest relative) could have performed a mitzvah of yibum with Rus even though she was a Moabite women, because the positive commandment of yibum would override the prohibition against marrying a Moabite woman. He refused to marry her because the children that would descend from this union would be tainted; they would not be allowed to marry into the congregation because the children would be Moabite’s, just like their mother. He was concerned even about his own children that he fathered beforehand. People might not understand the distinction, and they would claim that all his children are forbidden to marry into the congregation.

Boaz, on the other hand, did not have these concerns. The Gemora in Bava Basra (91a) records that all of his children died already.

This is what Doeg thought. He knew that Boaz would not publicly violate the Torah by marrying Rus illegally. This is why Doeg claimed that Dovid is prohibited from marrying into the congregation. Dovid descends from Rus, and she is a Moabite that has the prohibition of not marrying into the congregation. Boaz was justified to perform yibum with her, but the children will still remain disqualified from entering the congregation.

There are many questions on this explanation. The Kli Chemdah and Yashreish Yaakov ask: The entire premise of the Maharsha is flawed. The Ramban’s explanation of yibum is only prior to the Giving of the Torah. After the Torah was given, yibum can only be performed on a brother’s wife; not with any other relatives.

The Alshich asks: How could there have been a mitzvah of yibum with Rus altogether? Her marriage with Machlon had no validity; she was an idolater.

Furthermore, Tosfos rules that only the initial part of cohabitation would be Biblically permitted with a woman who is forbidden by a negative precept. One is prohibited from completing cohabitation. How was Boaz able to complete cohabitation with Rus, and father a child with her?

The Yashreish Yaakov concludes by saying that the words of the Maharsha were only to be taken as a drush.

Read more!

MODESTY OF THE WOMEN FROM MOAB - Yevamos 77 - Daf Yomi

Avner replied to Doeg: “It is different regarding the prohibition against Ammonites and Moabites because the Scriptural text is explicitly stated regarding them [Devarim 23:5]: Because they did not greet you with bread and with water. It is customary for a man to greet travelers with bread and water, but it is not customary for a woman to greet them (the women were, therefore, excluded from the prohibition).”

The Gemora asks: Why are the female Ammonites and Moabites permitted if they should have brought out bread and water to the women?

The Gemora answers: In Bavel, they cited the following verse [Tehillim 45:14]: The very honor of a princess is within. In Eretz Yisroel, they cited the following verse [Breishis 18:9]: And they said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” He said: “Behold, she is in the tent.”

The Maharshal asks: Were the women from Ammon and Moab modest? It is written regarding them that they were promiscuous women? What is the justification for them not going out and greeting the Jews?

He explains that it was the modesty of the Jewish women that prevented the women from Ammon and Moab to greet them. The Jewish women remained in their tents, something they had learned from their Matriarch, Sarah.

It is interesting to note that the Chasam Sofer answers that the women from Moab were modest indeed. It was in fact customary even for them to remain inside. It was only after Bilaam’s failure to curse the Jewish people that Balak convinced them to go out and seduce the Jewish men.

Read more!

DIVINE RETRIBUTION - Yevamos 77 - Daf Yomi

The Gemara in Sanhedrin (106b) describes Doeg’s downfall:

Rabbi Ami said: Doeg did not die until he forgot his learning, as it is stated: He shall die bereft of wisdom, led into error by his great folly. Rav Ashi said: Doeg was afflicted by tzaraas before he died, as it is stated: You cut down (hitzmatah) all who stray from You. The verb hitzmatah alludes to tzaraas, as follows: It is written there, in connection with the Yovel year: litzmisus, which Targum Onkelos renders as lachalutin; and we learned in a Mishnah: There is no difference between a confined metzora and a confirmed (muchlat) metzora except the regulations concerning letting the hair grow and rending the garments. The term muchlat, which is used in this Mishnah in connection with tzaraas, has the same root as lachalutin, which is the Targum for litzmisus. It follows that hitzmatah, which has the same root as litzmisus, also alludes to tzaraas. Thus, scripture implies that Doeg was afflicted with tzaraas.

One may wonder why it was necessary for Doeg to be afflicted with tzaraas before he died. Was it not sufficient for him to die young?

My brother, Reb Binyomin, in his sefer on Sanhedrin explains: Let us understand the punishment of tzaraas. One who slanders someone is liable the punishment of tzaraas, as we see from numerous incidents in the Torah with Moshe disparaging the Jewish People, Miriam talking ill about her brother Moshe, and other instances. The affliction of tzaraas is meant to demonstrate to the sinner that he is an outcast, and the sinner must mend his or hers ways before being allowed normal social interaction. Doeg had slandered Dovid and thus earned the punishment of tzaraas. Although Doeg’s punishment is only inferred from the exposition of the Gemara, the Gemara is teaching us that no one can escape Divine Retribution. Reb Moshe Feinstein, in the Sefer Derash Moshe, explains that this is the reason why the plague of Barad, fire and hail, only affected the flax and the barley in Egypt, while the wheat and the spelt were not struck, as Hashem only punished the Egyptians commensurate with their evil deeds. If we would recognize that Hashem rewards our good deeds five hundred fold , then we would make every attempt to study Torah whenever possible, and perform as many mitzvos as possible.

Read more!