The B-Set Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Daf Tzadi Heh Yevamos, has been dedicated and sponsored by our dear friend Mr. Isaac Jamal and his wife, in honor of his family, wishing them success and prosperity in all their endeavors. May they be blessed to raise their children in the ways of the Torah, bringing them much nachas, and may they merit to have many more children with health and happiness, finding favor and kindness in the eyes of Hashem and humanity. May they send blessings to him and his entire family, Amen.
Today's Daf is being studied for the success of Yosef ben Sarah and his family, donated by an anonymous sponsor. May Hashem bless Yosef ben Sarah and his family with wealth, honor, success, health, and all good things, Amen. Furthermore, today's Daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Chacham Avraham Zafrani ben Latifa, and may the spirit of Hashem rest upon him in Gan Eden, Amen. Additionally, we study for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, with similar prayers for his peace in Gan Eden, Amen.
We begin today's Daf on Tzadi Heh, Amud Rishon, and we are seven lines from the top. We commence with the words of Rav Yehuda: "There is no argument between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding a man who has relations with his mother-in-law; both agree that he cannot return to his wife." The Gemara will elaborate on this later based on verses.
What, then, is the argument between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel? It concerns a case where a man has relations with his wife's sister. Beis Shammai states that he cannot return to his wife. Rashi explains that Beis Shammai derives this from a kal vachomer, as we learned in yesterday's Daf. This kal vachomer is as follows: In a case where a woman commits adultery, she becomes an 'eshet ish' (a married woman). The Gemara refers to this as a light prohibition, while the prohibition of a wife's sister is considered severe. Therefore, the Gemara states: "In a case of a light prohibition, the one who forbids her becomes forbidden." Thus, if a husband forbids his wife from being with another man, he himself becomes forbidden to her if she has relations with another man.
In contrast, in a case of a severe prohibition, such as relations with a wife's sister, is it not logical that the one who forbids will become forbidden as well? The wife is the one who forbids her sister to the husband; thus, if he has relations with her sister, he should also become forbidden to return to his wife. This is the position of Beis Shammai.
Beis Hillel, however, argues that he can return to his wife. Their reasoning is based on a verse stating, "And a man shall lie with her." The Gemara interprets this to mean that only when she herself has relations with another man does she become forbidden to her husband, but not when the relations were with her sister. This is how Rav Yehuda understands the machloket between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel.
Rav Yosef argues differently, stating that there is no disagreement between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding relations with a wife's sister; everyone agrees that he can return to his wife. The argument arises when he has relations with his mother-in-law. Beis Shammai says he cannot return, while Beis Hillel says he can. The Gemara explains that initially, he is permitted to all women in the world, and she is permitted to all men as well. Once he marries her, he forbids her to certain men, and she likewise forbids him. However, the Gemara states that she is more forbidden to him, as she is forbidden to all men, whereas he only forbids her to certain men.
Thus, when he has relations with his mother-in-law, he becomes forbidden to return to his wife, while Beis Hillel argues that this does not apply. The Gemara explains that since initially he was permitted to all women, and she was permitted to all men, there is no reason to prohibit him from returning to his wife after having relations with his mother-in-law.
Rav Yehuda states that the halacha does not follow Rav Yehuda, meaning that if a person has relations with his mother-in-law, it would be permissible for him to return to his wife. The Gemara recounts an incident where a man committed an isur with his mother-in-law, and Rav Yehuda punished him with lashes, indicating that the halacha does not follow Rav Yehuda's opinion.
The Gemara continues, discussing the kal vachomer that was established earlier regarding a person who has relations with his wife's sister. The kal vachomer was derived from the prohibition of an 'eshet ish.' The Gemara explains that when a married woman commits adultery, she becomes forbidden to her husband. Therefore, the kal vachomer concludes that in the case of a wife's sister, the husband should also become forbidden.
However, the Gemara presents a challenge to this reasoning, questioning whether this kal vachomer can be applied universally. The discussion revolves around the nature of the prohibitions and the implications of each case. The Gemara ultimately concludes that there are distinctions between the various cases, and the application of these laws requires careful consideration.
As the discussion unfolds, the Gemara addresses the statements of Rabbi Yossi, who asserts that anyone who causes others to be forbidden will also be forbidden to themselves. The Gemara analyzes this statement in the context of various scenarios, highlighting the nuances of the halachic principles involved.
In conclusion, the Gemara emphasizes the importance of understanding the distinctions between different cases and the implications of each ruling. The halachic discussions reflect a deep engagement with the complexities of Jewish law, ensuring that the principles are applied correctly and meaningfully in practice.