Kinyan Kesef

The Mishna had stated: If a man verbally divides his property among his inheritors, Rabbi Elozar says that whether he is healthy or dangerously ill (he is required to make a formal kinyan to transfer his property), real property (land) can be transferred only by money payment, by document, or by an act of possession (chazakah; displaying ownership), and movable property may be transferred only by pulling (a kinyan meshichah).

This would be a proof that one may give a gift through a kinyan of money, for the words of a shechiv mei’ra are merely a gift, and yet, Rabbi Eliezer said that he may transfer property through a kinyan of money.

The Netziv points this out in his He’emek Shailah. However, he cites a She’iltos that omits the kinyan of money. The She’iltos writes that his transfer of property can be accomplished through a chazakah (propriety act), a document or chalifin (exchange), but there is no mention of money. It would seem that the Tur also holds like this.

This would be dependent on the dispute between the S”ma and the Ta”z regarding the mechanism of a kinyan with money. The S”ma holds that money is the value of the purchase and it is used as part of the payment. Accordingly, this would not apply when one is giving a gift to another. However, according to the Ta”z, who holds that money is an act of acquisition similar to others; one can use the kinyan of money to acquire a gift.

Read more!

Slaves and Land

Comparing Slaves and Land

The Torah has a hekesh which equates slaves with land. Our Gemora says that although slaves might be considered as land, there are differences between the two stemming from the fact that slaves are movable and land is not. Therefore, our Gemora says that even if people consider slaves like land, they don’t mean to include them is the sale of the city. All real land is included in the sale.

There are other instances where the actual difference between slaves and land causes them to have different halachos as well. Rav Chaim HaLevi quotes a Raavad who differentiates between these two categories. If one steals a slave and the owner gives up hope of retrieving him, the owner loses ownership of him. This is not the case with land. Why should there be a difference? Rav Chaim answers that if giving up hope is related to the ability the Torah gives thief to acquire a stolen object, there would be no difference between the two. Anytime an object is out of the possession of the owner, and the owner has lost hope of retrieval, he relinquishes ownership. It doesn’t matter whether the object was lost or stolen. Therefore what matters is whether the object in reality is out of the owner’s possession. Slaves, which move, can be considered out of the owner’s possession. Land, which is stationary, is always considered in the owner’s possession. Thus, even though there is a halachic comparison between the two categories, sometimes the different properties of each will determine differences in halachah.

HALACHOS FROM THE DAF

Slave - Karka or Mitaltilin

The Gemora inquired: When a shechiv mei’ra gave his movables as a gift, does a non Jewish slave have the status of karka (property, real estate), or movables (lit. movable objects, i.e. possessions that are not property)? Rashbam points out, that for Biblical laws there is no question that they are considered karka, however, here we need to ascertain what the shechiv mei’ra had in mind when he gave a gift of movables - did he mean to include the slave or not.

One of the cases mentioned in Rashbam where a slave has the status of karka is by kinyan. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 196:1) rules: A slave has the same laws as karka, therefore he can be acquired via money, document or chazakah (he may also be acquired through kinyan suddar and meshicha, ibid). In order to be acquired via chazakah, the slave needs to serve his master, for example - he should tie or untie his shoes; he should carry the masters clothing to the bathhouse or do any of the myriad other chores which he is expected to do once he is officially his slave.

There is a machlokes Rishonim how to rule. The Gemora did not answer this question; therefore, the Rema says that the slave is not included in the gift, since the burden of proof is on the one exacting money from his fellow. The Rif, Rosh and Rambam, however, rule that the slave is included.

The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 248:10) rules that the slave is included.

Read more!

Kinyan Peiros on the Esrog

Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda expounded: If one said to another, “This esrog is given to you as a gift, and after you (his death) it shall be given to So-and-so,” and the first recipient took it and fulfilled his obligation with it, this will be a point of dispute between Rebbe and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (for according to Rebbe, who maintains that the one who has the rights to the produce is not regarded as the owner of the object, he will not have discharged his obligation, for the esrog is not his; according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is regarded as his, and he will have fulfilled his obligation).

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asked him: The dispute between Rebbe and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is only if the acquisition of the produce is like the acquisition of the capital or not, but here, if the first recipient cannot discharge his obligation with it, for what other purpose was the esrog given to him! Rather, it is clear that everyone holds that the first recipient may properly discharge his obligation with it; the argument would be regarding a case where he sold it or ate it.

The Mefarshim ask: According to Rebbe, who holds that the one who has the rights to the produce is not regarded as the owner of the object, how can the first recipient discharge his obligation with this esrog? It is not regarded as “lachem” – completely his, so what difference does it make that the donor intended for him to fulfill his mitzvah?

The Ritva explains that since the donor’s intention is that the first recipient should discharge his obligation with it, it must be that he gave him the guf (capital) and the peiros (the produce) completely; however, he stipulated that he, after he has discharged his obligation with it, must give it over completely to the second person. This would be similar to a gift that was given on condition that it is returned to him.

Reb Shmuel Rozovsky explains as follows: It is evident from the Gemora above (136b) that even according to Rebbe, it is possible to give someone rights to the produce that will be regarded as an acquisition of the guf. For the Gemora said that a father, who retains the rights to the produce in a case when he gave away the land to his son, since it affects him personally, he made sure to keep certain rights to the land along with the produce. So too in this case, it is evident that the donor intends to give the guf of the esrog along with the peiros; accordingly, the recipient can discharge his obligation with it.

Read more!

Avraham Walking the Land

By: Reb Avi Lebowitz

The Gemora cites a braisa: If one walked in it through the length and width of it, he has acquired the place where he walked; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. The Chachamim, however, say: Walking accomplishes nothing unless he makes a propriety act.

Rabbi Elozar said: What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason? It is written: (Hashem said to Avraham:) Arise walk through the land in the length and width of it, for I will give it to you. [Evidently, he acquired it through walking.] The Chachamim, however, hold that there, Hashem told him that (since He loved him), that his children will be able to conquer the land with ease (for they will not be accused of being thieves).

There are several explanations in the Chachamim’s opinion.

1. Rashbam - It is a way to demonstrate to the Satan that Eretz Yisroel belonged to Avraham’s descendants and they cannot be accused of stealing it.

2. Ramban in Lech Lecha explains that it was a ma'aseh avos siman l'banim. It was symbolic of the Jews taking over Eretz Yisroel in the future.

3. Rambam and Kesef Mishneh in hilchos Bikkurim write that Avraham became the av hamon goyim - - “the father of all nations,” which means that all the nations of the world could theoretically have an equal claim on Eretz Yisroel. Based on this, we can explain that Avraham had to display ownership over it prior to his name being changed to Avraham.

4. It was a psychological acquisition. The purpose was to make the children of Avraham feel that Eretz Yisroel was theirs, so that they would be moser nefesh to conquer it in the future.

Read more!

Verbally committing to a Sandek or a Mohel

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Rishonim discuss a case where a father committed to honor someone with part of the bris ceremony, either as a sandak or a mohel, and then changed his mind. (See Beis Yosef YD 264)

The Maharam says that since these commitments are routinely made and kept, the commitment is enforceable in court.

Rabbeinu Yechiyel limits this to a commitment made after the baby was born.

The Radvaz holds that if the commitment was made before the baby was born, he is not obligated to honor it at all, for this would have the status of selling something that is not yet in existence. However, if he told him this after the baby was born, since these commitments are routinely made and kept, he cannot retract from his words. He concludes by saying that it is a well established principle by us that a custom is extremely significant, and one should not break it.

He proves this from our Gemora, which states: Rav Papi said in Rava’s name: A mark of identification (which the buyers would mark if they planned on buying it) on the wine barrels can effect possession (although they left them in the possession of the seller). This proves that although a proper kinyan was not performed, the making of an identifying mark can effect acquisition based on the custom of that locality.

The Rosh disagrees and says that only a standard kinyan is enforceable.

Rabbeinu Tam says that if one committed to a mohel to do his son’s bris, this has the status of a verbal commitment, and one who does not keep it is considered untrustworthy.

The Pri Yitzchak says that committing to a mohel has the status of a small gift, since the father typically cannot perform the bris, and he is simply giving the right to choose the mohel. However, committing to a sandak is a large gift, since the father himself can do that, and he is giving that right to the sandak. Since it is a large gift, a verbal commitment would not be binding.

Read more!

Kinyan through Admission

The Gemora struggles to figure out a way how Reuven can transfer his money that he has at home to Shimon, who will then use that money to redeem the ma’aser sheini of Reuven and avoid the additional fifth surcharge.

The Gemora suggests that if Reuven would have land to transfer to Shimon, he could transfer the money “agav” the property. Although Tosfos in Bava Kamma (12a) writes that kinyan agav is only Rabbinical, apparently Tosfos understands that even a Rabbinical kinyan would be sufficient to establish Shimon as an owner of the money to redeem the ma’aser sheini and biblically avoid the additional fifth surcharge.

Tosfos raises a question: Even without a kinyan agav or kinyan chalifin, can’t Reuven very directly transfer to Shimon the money by “admitting” that it actually belongs to Shimon?

In this question, Tosfos evidently assumes that an admission doesn’t merely allow Beis Din to act as if witnesses testified, but it actually transforms the ownership of the item to belong to Shimon and would be considered Shimon’s money for ma’aser sheini redemption purposes.

The Ketzos HaChoshen (40) answers Tosfos question by establishing a clause in this type of kinyan that it must be done in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, we can easily state that we are dealing with a case where there are no witnesses available to allow the kinyan hoda’ah (admission) to go into effect.

The Ketzos (194:4) has an elaborate discussion where he explains that this type of admitting would serve as a kinyan even for the purpose of transferring chametz that is another place to belong to a gentile. We see from the fact that it works for ma’aser sheini that it not only works for monetary purposes, but even for prohibition purposes, therefore it should work for chametz as well.

However, Tosfos in Bava Kamma (104b) implies that it would not work on a Biblical level and wouldn’t work for ma’aser sheini purposes. Nevertheless, the Ketzos argues that it should still work for chametz since one has nullified the chametz and the requirement to rid himself of the chametz is only Rabbinical. But in truth, the Ketzos points out that even if kinyan hoda’ah is only Rabbinic in origin, it shouldn’t be any worse than kinyan agav which works for ma’aser sheini.

Reb Avi Lebowitz suggests that Tosfos in Bava Kamma doesn’t necessarily contradict our Tosfos because Tosfos in Bava Kamma is speaking about a case where he is admitting that he owns property by which he will transfer the money through a kinyan agav - to which Tosfos says that it doesn’t work on a Biblical level. But our Tosfos speaks of directly transferring the money through an admission, which would work on a Biblical level.

The rationale for the distinction is that admitting to owning property would require two Rabbinical allowances - one for the kinyan hoda’ah and a second for kinyan agav. A kinyan which is based on a combination of two Rabbinical allowances is weaker and perhaps would not work on a Biblical level.

Read more!

Riding

The Mishna had stated: If two people were riding on an animal, or one was riding and one was leading the animal, and each of them claims that he owns the animal, each should swear that they do not own less than half of the animal, and they should then split the animal.

Rav Yosef said: Rav Yehudah told me: I have heard from the Master Shmuel two rulings regarding a rider and a leader. One of them does acquire the animal, and one does not. However, I do not know which of them acquires and which does not.

It is evident from the Gemora that the “leader” is acquiring the animal with an act of meshichah (pulling it).

Many Rishonim understand the kinyan by the “rider” as follows: The animal is walking due to the weight of the person sitting upon it. This is tantamount to “pulling it.”

Tosfos explains: The rider is holding onto the animal’s reins and it is moving a little because of him.

Rashi seems to say that the “rider” can acquire the animal even if it doesn’t move at all. It would seem that “riding” would be a new type of kinyan.

The Reshash cites the Ritzvash that the “rider” acquires it because he is “using” the animal. This would be similar to a propriety act done with land.

Read more!

Kinyan Agav

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here. We now have a “less than ten minute” audio summary as well.

The Gemora (Bava Kamma 12) rules that the movable property does not need to be piled on the real property in order for the kinyan agav (by making a kinyan on the land, he automatically acquires the movable property) to be effective.

The Rishonim ask: If the halachah would be that kinyan agav is only effective if the movable property is piled on the land, why would it be necessary to use agav? The movable property should be acquired because it is resting in his courtyard!?

The Ritv”a answers: The Gemora is referring to a case where the courtyard is not protected and therefore it cannot be used to make a kinyan. That is why agav is necessary.

The Shitah Mekubetzes answers that a courtyard can acquire for a person only movable property that entered it after it became his. However, a courtyard cannot acquire property that was in it before the courtyard became his.

The Steipler Gaon writes that the Shach states this halachah only with respect to the acquisition of a courtyard without the knowledge of the owner. However, if he intends to use the courtyard to acquire the movable property which is found in it, it will be effective even if the property entered the courtyard before it became his.

Read more!

Assessments

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here. We now have a “less than ten minute” audio summary as well.

by Reb Avi Lebovitz http://www.hearos.blogspot.com

The Gemora (Bava Kamma 11) concludes that if one steals an item and ruins it, he is not able to simply return the broken item and pay for the damage; rather, he has to pay in cash for the entire item, or replace it with an equivalent item. However, when one damages, or borrows an item and it gets damaged by accident, he can simply return the item and pay the depreciation amount. Why? Tosfos explains that when one steals an item, they immediately acquire the item by removing it from the domain of its owner, and therefore are liable to reimburse the owner for the entire item (not just the difference from the time it was stolen and the time it is returned). But, when one damages, he is only responsible for the amount that the item depreciated due to the damage, but whatever remains still belongs to the original owner. Based on this, a borrower, who is responsible if an accident happens, since he is regarded as acquiring the object when he borrows it, he therefore is responsible for the entire item.

Why do we say that a borrower is making a kinyan and acquiring the object at the time that he accepts responsibility? Just as a paid custodian is only responsible for what was stolen but he can return whatever remains and just pay the difference, a borrower should be able to do the same? Tosfos understands that since a borrower is responsible for unavoidable accidents, his responsibility cannot begin at the time that the accident occurs because one cannot be liable for a complete accident. The only way that a borrower can be responsible for an accident is because he makes a kinyan on the object when he borrows it. Based on this, there is a major difference between the liability of a (paid or unpaid) custodian and that of a borrower. A custodian is responsible for their negligence in not protecting the object, and that obligation begins at the time of the incident. A borrower, on the other hand, is not responsible for the incident, but responsible at the moment he borrows it to return the item as it is at that moment.

Read more!

Condition against the Torah

The Gemara cites a Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah regarding whether a person may make a Tenai modifying the obligations stipulated by the Torah regarding monetary law ("Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah"). Rebbi Meir says that if a man is Mekadesh a woman on condition that he not be obligated to give her She'er, Kesus, and Onah, the Tenai is invalid and the Kidushin takes effect fully (and he is obligated to provide her with She'er, Kesus, and Onah). Rebbi Yehudah says the Tenai is valid, and the Kidushin takes effect and he is not obligated to provide her with She'er, Kesus, and Onah.
Rebbi Meir's view is difficult to understand. If the Tenai is null and void, then why should the Kidushin take effect at all? The man was Mekadesh the woman on condition that if he is not obligated to give her She'er, Kesus, and Onah, then he wants the Kidushin to take effect, and conversely, if he will be obligated in She'er, Kesus, and Onah, then he does not want the Kidushin to take effect! (Rebbi Meir requires a "Tenai Kaful" -- both sides of the condition stated explicitly -- whenever a Tenai is used, as the Mishnah says in Kidushin 61a.) Since the man specified clearly that he does not want the Kidushin to be valid if he will be obligated to give She'er, Kesus, and Onah, then how can the Kidushin take effect and obligate him in She'er, Kesus, and Onah? He did not have in mind for the Kidushin to take effect under such circumstances! (TOSFOS DH Harei Zu)


ANSWERS:

(a) The RI explains that we learns all the laws of Tenai, including the very fact that one may make a Tenai, from a verse (in Kidushin, ibid.) If not for the fact that the Torah teaches that there is such a thing as making a Tenai, we would not have known that there is a concept of Tenai at all. Had the Torah not taught us the concept of Tenai, that one may make a stipulation when making a Kinyan, we would have thought that when a person makes a Tenai as a precondition to a certain Kinyan, we just ignore the Tenai and the Kinyan takes effect. By teaching that a Tenai does work, the Torah is teaching that if the condition is not fulfilled, the Kinyan is annulled retroactively. In the situations in which the Torah does not teach that a Tenai works (such as a situation in which the Tenai counters that which is written in the Torah), we revert back to the original way we would have ruled had the Torah not taught us the concept of Tenai, and the Kinyan works regardless of the fulfillment of the Tenai.
This answer of Tosfos is very difficult to understand. Even without the Torah teaching us the laws of Tenai, we should know, logically, that if a person sells an item to his friend and stipulates that the sale should not be valid unless his friend gives him something or does something, then if the friend fails to fulfill the Tenai the sale should not be valid, since the person did not fully commit himself to the sale!
To answer this question, we must first analyze a related Halachah -- the Halachah of Bereirah. In many places in the Gemara we find the view that holds "Ein Bereirah," which means that a Kinyan cannot be effected if -- at the moment that it takes effect -- it is not clear upon what it takes effect. For example, a person cannot pick up an item in order to be Koneh it and say, "If it rains tomorrow, I want this act of Kinyan to be for Reuven, and if it does not rain tomorrow, I want this act of Kinyan to be for Shimon." If a person does make such a stipulation, then even if it rains the next day, the object will not belong to Reuven. Similarly, a person cannot eat fruits today, "The portion that I will choose to separate tomorrow will be Terumah on these fruits starting from now." If he does so, then even if he separates a portion tomorrow, it will not serve as Terumah.
The logic for this, as the RAN explains in Nedarim (45b), is that "it is not appropriate for a Kinyan to take effect in a way that leaves a doubt as to how it took effect." This means that the Kinyan must take effect at the same moment at which the action which accomplishes the Kinyan is performed (such as the act of Hagba'ah (lifting up an item) in the case of a purchase, or Dibur (speech) in the case of making something Terumah). The Kinyan cannot take effect after the act, because the act which makes the Kinyan is no longer present. Thus, if at the moment that the act is performed, the Kinyan "does not know" where to take effect, the Kinyan does not take effect (or it takes effect on one of the two, regardless of what happens the next day; see Insights to Eruvin 37b). The Kinyan cannot see into the future, so to speak.
What is the difference between Bereirah and a Tenai? No Tenai should ever work if we say "Ein Bereirah," because the Kinyan cannot know what will happen in the future (whether the Tenai will be fulfilled or not) in order to be able to take effect now!
RASHI and TOSFOS (Gitin 25b, DH u'l'Chi Mayis) explain that when a person makes a Tenai, it is in his ability, and it is his intention, to fulfill the condition (for otherwise he would not have made the Kinyan in the first place). Hence, the Kinyan is not taking effect in a matter that leaves doubt. Rather, it takes effect for certain at the time the act of Kinyan is made, since he intends to fulfill the Tenai. What, then, is it that revokes the Kinyan retroactively when the condition is not fulfilled? The Kinyan has already been made and completed; it took effect, so how can it be revoked retroactively? The answer is that this is the reason why the Torah has to teach us the novel concept of Tenai -- even though the Kinyan was made, it can be revoked through not fulfilling the condition. This is what the Ri means to say -- since the Torah did not teach the concept of Tenai in a case where the Tenai contradicts the obligations of the Torah, then we revert to saying that the Kinyan is completed and nothing can uproot it retroactively, since it has already been done and has already taken effect. The person who made the Kinyan did intend for the Kinyan to take effect for certain, since he was expecting the Tenai to be fulfilled.
For this reason, when a man makes a Kidushin on condition that he not be obligated to give She'er, Kesus, and Onah, he obviously thinks that he is able to create such a Kidushin and he has in mind that the Kidushin should be completed, except that it should be uprooted if it turns out that he is obligated to give She'er, Kesus, and Onah. But by that time, it is too late to revoke the Kidushin, since it already took effect.
(b) RABEINU TAM (cited by the Tosfos Yeshanim and the Tosfos ha'Rosh), the RITVA, and the RASHBA (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) explain that when a person makes a Tenai that contradicts the Torah, he does not really mean it, but he is just being "Mafligah b'Devarim" -- he is just frightening her with words. The Beraisa in Gitin (84a) teaches such a concept with regard to a person who says to his wife that he is giving her a Get on condition that she does something that is physically impossible to do (see Rashi there, DH Mafligah). Since he knows that the Halachah of the Torah requires that Kidushin be done in a certain way with certain obligations, it must be that he is not serious about his condition to alter those obligations, and therefore he probably has in mind to make a Kidushin, and he is just saying this condition in order to frighten her.
Rabeinu Tam might have rejected the explanation of the Ri because his explanation is logically sound only when the condition is something that will be fulfilled or not fulfilled at a point after the Kinyan is completed. In the case of Kidushin, though, the Kidushin takes effect at the same time that the obligations of She'er, Kesus, and Onah take effect (or do not take effect). Thus, since the Kidushin does not depend on a future event but on a present event, the Kidushin should not take effect (since he did not have in mind to make such a Kidushin that obligates him in She'er, Kesus, and Onah). (See also Rebbi Akiva Eiger.)
The Ri might have explained like the Rashba, who says that the condition that the husband was stipulating was not that Kidushin should take effect without the obligations of She'er, Kesus, and Onah. Rather, the husband was stipulating that Kidushin should take effect only if the woman forgoes her entitlement to She'er, Kesus, and Onah. This can take place after the Kidushin is effected. (This is not like the opinion of Rabeinu Elchanan as quoted later in Tosfos.)
The Ri, on the other hand, did not accept Rabeinu Tam's explanation, because "Mafligah b'Devarim" can only be applied to a Tenai made against something written in the Torah, but not when any of the other details of Tenai were omitted. However, we find that if a person makes a Tenai in the wrong order ("Ma'aseh Kodem le'Tenai"), then the Kinyan takes effect and we ignore the Tenai even though the logic of "Mafligah b'Devarim" does not apply (as the RE'AH points out)!

INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
daf@dafyomi.co.il http://www.dafyomi.co.il

[END]

Read more!

Chalifin for a MInor - Gittin 65

Rava said: There are three categories of a minor: If he would be given a rock, he would discard it, but if given a walnut, he would accept it, he can make an acquisition on things, but he may not acquire for others.

Tosfos asks that it seems from a Gemora in Bava Basra that a minor does not have the ability to acquire anything!?

Tosfos answers: The Gemora there could be referring to a minor who has not yet reached this stage of understanding.

Alternatively, they answer that the Gemora there is referring only to a kinyan chalifin (acquiring something through an exchange with a kerchief or other object), where a minor has a more difficult time grasping the mechanics of the kinyan.

The Ra”n explains that the Rabbis instituted for a minor only those kinyanim where the object is raised or pulled by the minor; however, other types of kinyanim, where the concepts are difficult to grasp, are not effective for the minor.

The Rashb”a adds that since we rule that the object being used for the chalifin must be owned by the one making the acquisition, it emerges that the minor must convey the object to the seller. He does not have enough knowledge to accomplish that and therefore the kinyan is not effective.

Read more!

Food for Thought

*** How can we (Kesuvos 47a) be discussing a case where she was delivered to the chupah on Shabbos and Yom Tov? Isn’t it forbidden to make a kinyan then?

*** Tosfos asks: How can one get married on Yom Tov; there is an obligation for simcha, and we may not intermingle one source of joy with another? Perhaps, we can answer that the Gemora is referring to Rosh Hashanah, where there is no obligation for simcha (according to some commentators)?

*** Why does Tosfos have to explain the case to be referring to one where they got married in the time that was added on to Yom Tov, and therefore, there is no obligation for simcha; couldn’t we have said that they got married on the first night of Yom Tov, and the Gemora Pesachim (71a) states that there is no obligation for simcha on the first night?

Read more!

THE STATUS OF THE WIVES AFTER ONE OF THEM PERFORMS CHALITZAH presented by: Kollel Iyun HaDaf

Kollel Iyun HaDaf

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the status of the surviving brothers and the wives (Tzaros) of the deceased brother after Chalitzah is performed by one of the brothers with one of the Tzaros. Reish Lakish maintains that all of the brothers are prohibited to all of the Tzaros with an Isur Kares (the Isur of "Eshes Ach"), with the exception of the brother and the woman who did Chalitzah, who are prohibited to each other only with a Lav (the Isur of "Lo Yivneh"). Rebbi Yochanan maintains that they are all prohibited to each other with only a Lav and not with Kares.

The Gemara explains Rebbi Yochanan's reasoning. It does not make sense that one brother (the one who did Chalitzah) should be prohibited to the woman with only a Lav while the other brothers are prohibited to her with an Isur Kares, since they were all equally entitled to do Chalitzah. Rather, the brother who did Chalitzah acted as a Shali'ach on behalf of all the other brothers, and the woman who did Chalitzah acted as a Shali'ach on behalf of all the Tzaros.

It is clear that Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the Isur Kares of "Eshes Ach" disappears completely in a situation of Yibum, when one brother dies and his wives fall to Yibum (or Chalitzah) to the other brothers. According to Rebbi Yochanan, at exactly what point does the Isur Kares of "Eshes Ach" of all the wives disappear? Is it removed as soon as the brother dies or only when a surviving brother performs Chalitzah? The words of the Gemara provide apparently conflicting implications.

The first part of Rebbi Yochanan's reasoning (that the Isur Kares should be removed from all of the brothers because initially any one of them could do Chalitzah or Yibum) implies that even before any brother performs Chalitzah, the Isur Kares is removed. On the other hand, the second part of his reasoning (that the Yavam and Yevamah who perform Chalitzah (or Yibum) act as Shelichim for the others) implies that it is the act of Chalitzah which removes the Isur Kares, and until that act is done the Isur remains in force.

ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS (10b, DH Ihu) implies that the prohibition of "Eshes Ach" remains in force until Chalitzah is performed, at which time the act of Chalitzah removes the prohibition. Rebbi Yochanan -- who says that when the wife falls to Yibum any brother may perform Chalitzah -- does not mean that there is no prohibition of "Eshes Ach," but rather that it is logical that the Torah would not give a Mitzvah to the brothers from which they could excuse themselves and pass on to another brother. Rather, the brothers never actually remove themselves from the obligation. Whichever brother performs Chalitzah (or Yibum) does so on behalf of all of the other brothers.

This also seems to be the opinion of RASHI (52a, DH Nasan), who calls the Yevamah an "Eshes Ach" even during the period of Zikah.

Support for this approach may be adduced from the opinion of Aba Shaul (39b). Aba Shaul disagrees with the Rabanan and maintains that performing Chalitzah is preferable over performing Yibum, because one who performs Yibum with impure intentions "is considered as though he lives with an Ervah, and the child is virtually a Mamzer." If the prohibition of "Eshes Ach" is removed at the time the woman falls to Yibum and before Yibum is done, there should be no prohibition of Ervah whatsoever and no reason to say that the child is close to being a Mamzer. (See also Insights to Yevamos 7:1:b.)

(b) However, the RASHBA (41a, end of DH Shomeres Yavam) writes that Rebbi Yochanan's statement, "If this [brother] wants to do Chalitzah, then he may do it, and if this one wants to do Chalitzah, then he may do it," implies that the prohibition of "Eshes Ach" actually falls away as soon as the brothers become permitted to perform Yibum.

According to the Rashba, why does Rebbi Yochanan add that the brother acts as a Shali'ach on behalf of the other brothers? Even if he does not perform Chalitzah or Yibum on their behalf, the prohibition of "Eshes Ach" has already been removed from them!

Moreover, how does the Rashba understand the opinion of Reish Lakish who says that all of the other brothers are prohibited to the woman with an Isur Kares when one brother performs Yibum with her? The Rashba cannot explain that the Isur Kares falls away and then returns to the other brothers when one brother performs Yibum, because the Rashba himself asserts that once the prohibition of "Eshes Ach" is removed it cannot return.

The Acharonim offer two approaches to answer these questions. The simple approach is that the reason why Rebbi Yochanan says that one brother acts as a Shali'ach for the others is not to explain why the prohibition of "Eshes Ach" is removed (because it is not removed when the brother performs Yibum, but earlier, at the time the woman falls to Yibum). Rather, when Rebbi Yochanan says that one brother acts as a Shali'ach for the others his intent is to explain why the prohibition of "Lo Yivneh" takes effect for the other brothers. Although the verse implies that the prohibition of "Lo Yivneh" applies only to the brother who performed Chalitzah (and prohibits him from attempting to "rebuild" his brother's family), Rebbi Yochanan says that the prohibition of "Lo Yivneh" applies to all of the brothers (and Tzaros) because of the Shelichus. (This approach is difficult to read into the words of the Gemara.)

How does the Rashba understand the opinion of Reish Lakish? The Rashba apparently understands that Reish Lakish indeed maintains that the prohibition of "Eshes Ish" could return even if it was removed at the time the Yevamah fell to Yibum. Therefore, when one brother performs Chalitzah or Yibum, the prohibition returns to the other brothers. (This also appears to be the intention of the Rashba to 44a, DH v'Nachlotz, as printed in the Mosad ha'Rav Kook edition.)

A second approach is suggested by RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN Hy'd in KOVETZ HE'OROS (4:9 and 1:7). From various sources it seems that when one brother performs Yibum or Chalitzah, his act determines retroactively that the other brothers were not involved with the Zikah at all (see Insights to Yevamos 18:1, 24:1, and Imrei Moshe, end of #5). Perhaps this is Reish Lakish's intention when he says that the other brothers are prohibited to the Yevamah with an Isur Kares. Once one brother has performed Yibum, it becomes determined retroactively that he was the only one who was permitted to her. To which brother the Heter applies becomes known only after the Heter is actually utilized by one of the brothers.

Rebbi Yochanan also agrees that, in theory, the Zikah would be retroactively removed from any brothers and Tzaros not involved in the Chalitzah. However, he maintains that because of the Shelichus, they are all considered to be involved in the Zikah even retroactively, and thus the prohibition of "Eshes Ach" is removed from all of them. (According to the proposal that Rebbi Yochanan agrees that Zikah can be removed retroactively, it is not clear what he tries to prove from the words, "If this [brother] wants to do Chalitzah, then he may do it." How does Rebbi Yochanan prove from those words that the Zikah applies retroactively to all of them? Also, the Rashba clearly states that even when one brother can no longer do Yibum, the Yevamah is still permitted to him. This is contrary to the logic which Rav Elchanan applies to Reish Lakish's opinion.)

Another problem with the opinion of the Rashba is why the Gemara needs a verse to prove that the brother may remarry the Yevamah (with whom Yibum has been performed) after he divorced her (8b). His allowance to remarry her should be obvious if the prohibition of "Eshes Ach" can never return to the Yavam. Perhaps the Rashba maintains that it is only after the above verse is expounded that the Gemara understands that the prohibition of "Eshes Ach" is removed permanently once the Yevamah falls to Yibum.

Another possible explanation is that the Rashba accedes that after Yibum (or Chalitzah) is performed, the prohibition of "Eshes Ach" can return. Since the prohibition can return, a verse is necessary to teach that the Yavam may remarry the Yevamah (with whom Yibum was performed) after he divorced her. If this indeed is the view of the Rashba, it also explains why Reish Lakish can posit that the brothers become prohibited to the Yevamah with an Isur Kares, and why Rebbi Yochanan needs to introduce the concept of Shelichus.

As for how the Rashba adduces support for his opinion from the Gemara, perhaps he merely intends to show that there is a logical reason to assume that once the prohibition of "Eshes Ach" is removed, it remains permitted as long as possible (until Yibum according to Reish Lakish, and even after Yibum according to Rebbi Yochanan).

How does the Rashba understand Aba Shaul's statement (that it is better to do Chalitzah than Yibum because Yibum with impure intentions "is considered as though he lives with an Ervah")? The Kovetz He'oros explains that either the Rashba discusses only the opinion of the Rabanan, or he understands that Aba Shaul's statement expresses only a Halachah d'Rabanan and not a Halachah d'Oraisa.

In conclusion, there is a basic difference in understanding among the Rishonim with regard to whether the prohibition of "Eshes Ach" is removed at the moment the woman falls to Yibum (RASHI and TOSFOS) or whether it is removed only at the time of Chalitzah or Yibum (RASHBA). (See also Insights to Yevamos 20:2 and 20:3.)

This dispute may have other Halachic implications. For example, the Gemara (54a) states that if the Yavam unknowingly has relations -- before he has performed Yibum -- with his deceased brother's wife (for example, he was asleep during the act), no Kinyan takes effect. According to Rashi and Tosfos, she should become disqualified from eating Terumah since she has had a forbidden relationship with an Ervah. According to the Rashba, the act was not forbidden at all, and thus she should remain permitted to eat Terumah and to marry a Kohen. (See, however, Insights to Yevamos 35:2.)

INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
daf@dafyomi.co.il http://www.dafyomi.co.il

Read more!