The Eddie B. Sit Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically Gemara Yevamot, has been dedicated and sponsored by our dear friend, Mr. Isaac Jamal and his wife in honor of his family. We pray for their success and prosperity in all their endeavors, that they may merit to raise their children in the ways of the Torah, and that they should bring him much nachat. May he be blessed with health and happiness, grace and kindness in the eyes of Hashem and all people, and may he and his entire family be blessed, amen.
As we study Masechet Yevamot, it is important to note that many of the cases require diagrams. We have chosen the Sefer Tziyurim leMasechet Yevamot, authored by Aharon Shlomo ben Rabbi Baruch Moshe Hafner, for our illustrations, which is available in bookstores. When we refer to pages, we will be using this book. Today’s daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, may the Ruach Hashem rest upon him in Gan Eden, amen.
We begin today’s daf on Daf Yud Amud Rishon and start from the second line. To give a quick review of our current discussion: we had a conversation between Levi and Rebbi. Levi stated that there are fifteen cases in the Mishna where the erva is asura, but he argued that there is a sixteenth case as well. However, he did not specify which case he was referring to. Rebbi responded, questioning whether he was referring to arusat aviv or immo she’hi arusat aviv. He pointed out that this case is subject to a machloket, and our Mishna does not include cases that are under dispute.
Let us analyze the machloket in this case. The situation involves Yaakov, who was married to Leah and had an encounter with Chana; as a result, he had sons from both his wife and his anusa, namely Reuven and Yosef. Reuven then married arusat aviv, which is Chana, and here we encounter a machloket: according to the Rabbanan, this marriage is mutar, while according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is asur. Therefore, from the perspective of Rabbi Yehuda, there is no case to consider. However, according to the Rabbanan, the marriage can proceed, and if Reuven dies, Yosef falls to his mother, which is arusat aviv, thus becoming asura as he is now the tzara.
This case illustrates a machloket that only holds aliba deRabbanan but does not apply aliba deRabbi Yehuda, as Yosef would never reach a yibum scenario with her. Hence, the Mishna does not discuss this scenario. The Gemara then states that according to a principle of Rav Chiya, in all cases of our Mishna, ha’asura lezeh muteret lezeh, meaning that two brothers or two sisters can each engage in yibum with the one permissible to them. This principle applies in the cases of the Mishna, and Rav Safra suggests it can apply to all cases, even case number fourteen, which involves eshet achiv shelo haya be’olamo.
However, Rebbi does not subscribe to the rules of Rav Chiya. Therefore, when presenting case number fourteen in the Mishna, he does not need to reference it aliba deRabbi Shimon, as he does not adhere to the principle of ha’asura lezeh muteret lezeh. Instead, he can present the case straightforwardly aliba dechula alma, where Reuven died before Shimon performed yibum, and the next brother was born. In this situation, all agree that this brother will be asura to this yevama forever due to eshet achiv.
Rav Adda presented a viewpoint stating that Rav Chiya indeed holds these rules. If he adheres to these rules, it implies that case number fourteen can only be discussed aliba deRabbi Shimon. Thus, the Gemara concludes that Rebbi does not align with the principles of Rav Chiya and is not bound to include the case of immo anusat aviv as it cannot satisfy the formula of ha’asura lezeh muteret lezeh. The Gemara continues to explore the implications of this discussion.
As we delve deeper, the Gemara elaborates further on the potential cases and the intricacies involved. The conversation reveals the complexities of yibum and the status of various relationships, particularly in cases that involve disputes and differing opinions. The exploration of these cases not only highlights the importance of understanding the Mishna and its rulings but also emphasizes the need for clarity in the application of these principles in real-life scenarios.
In conclusion, the discussions surrounding yibum, the definitions of erva, and the implications of various relationships serve to deepen our understanding of the Talmud and the halachic principles that govern these complex situations. Each case, with its unique circumstances and rulings, contributes to the broader tapestry of Jewish law and tradition, guiding us in our observance and understanding of the Torah.