Permitted Rulings

The Gemora (Daf Yomi: Gittin 41b) had stated, applying the classic principle that it is preferable to render a permissible ruling. Rashi in Beitzah (2b) explains that this means that something that is permitted indicates that the Tanna is relying on his knowledge of the subject matter, and is not afraid to rule leniently. One can be strict even if he is in doubt and it does not necessarily indicate the conclusiveness of the ruling.

Rashbam in Pesachim (102a) writes that if there is no compelling logic to rule stringently, then ruling leniently is not regarded as a more preferred option. Rather, it is the only option. The Rema in his responsa (§ 54) rules that one is not allowed to be stringent regarding an issue where there is no uncertainty.

Pischei Teshuvah (Yoreh Deah 116:10) cites a dispute amongst the Acharonim if one is permitted to be stringent for himself regarding a matter that has been permitted by the Torah, such as a prohibited matter that was nullified.

Bnei Yissachar writes that it is a mitzvah not to be stringent in such a situation.

The Tzlach writes that it is preferable to record the permitted ruling regarding a situation that may be subject to a Biblical prohibition, because if there would be uncertainty, we would be compelled to rule stringently. The Tanna would not be introducing a novel ruling if the ruling was that the matter is prohibited. Regarding a matter that may be subject to a Rabbinic prohibition, however, the reverse would be true. It is preferable to record the stringent ruling because if there would be uncertainty, we would rule leniently.

Read more!

Validity of Signatures

The Mishna had stated: The witnesses sign the get to benefit the public.

The Gemora asks (Daf Yomi: Gittin 36a) : Do the witnesses only have to sign on the Get because of “Tikun Ha’Olam” – “benefiting the world?” This is a Torah law! This is evident from the verse, “And it should be written in a document and signed!”

Rabbah says: The Mishna’s statement is needed according to Rabbi Elozar, who holds that the witnesses for the giving of the document cause the document to take effect. Even according to him, Chazal instituted that witnesses should also sign the Get because of tikun ha’olam. This is because there are times when the witnesses of the giving of the Get might have died or went overseas (and at least the witnesses signed will be able to contradict the ex-husband in case he claims that he did not divorce her).

Rav Yosef says: Even according to Rabbi Meir (who holds that the witnesses for the giving of the document cause the document to take effect), they decreed that witnesses should specify their names in a Get, due to tikun ha’olam. This is as the braisa states: Originally, people would sign, “I, So-and-so (without writing his name), have signed as a witness.” If there was a different document with the same handwriting that was verified to be authentic, this document would also be valid. If not, it is not valid. Rabban Gamliel said: They made a great decree when they instituted that witnesses should specify their names in a Get, due to tikun ha’olam.

The mefarshim ask on the Rambam in Hilchos Edus (3:4), who states that the requirement for witnesses to sign on a document is only mi’divrei sofrim (a Rabbinical obligation). The Gemora expressly states that this is a Biblical requirement!?

The Megillas Sefer answers that when the Gemora states that it is Biblically required, it is not being completely accurate, for the verse where this obligation is derived from is a verse in Yirmiyah. The Gemora only meant to ask that from the Mishna it would seem that the witnesses sign only because of Rabban Gamliel’s decree, when in truth, this was established generations beforehand!

The Pnei Yehoshua answers that it is only a Biblical requirement according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that the witnesses who sign the document are those who render it effective. However, the Rambam rules in accordance with Rabbi Elozar, who holds that the witnesses who observe the delivery of the document are those who render it effective. Therefore, the Rambam writes that the signatures are only a Rabbinical requirement.

The Nesivos Hamishpat, Chasam Sofer and others answer that the Rambam is only referring to proof documents, since the witnesses are obligated to testify in Beis Din so that the judges will have the ability to cross examine them. Testimony is valid only from the mouths of the witnesses, but not on the basis of any documents or writings. However, regarding a document that is made to affect something, either a marriage, divorce, sale etc., the Rambam will agree that the signatures of the witnesses are Biblically required.

Reb Chaim Brisker adds that a document, like a get, which later will be used as proof that the woman got divorced can still be Biblically valid. For once the document rendered an effect, it is as if it has been investigated in Beis Din, and would not any longer be disqualified because of the rule that testimony must come from their mouths and not from their writings.

Read more!

Holding a Sacred Object

The Gemora (Nedarim 25a) relates the following incident: There was a person who was owed money by his friend, and the two of them came before Rava. The lender said: Pay me! The borrower said: I already did! Rava said: Swear that you paid him. The borrower then filled his cane with the amount of money he borrowed and leaned on it while walking to Beis Din. Before he took the oath, the borrower asked the lender to hold his cane for him while he took the oath. The borrower then took a Sefer Torah and swore that he had given the lender whatever he had owed him. When the lender heard this he got upset and broke the cane, causing the money to fall out. It was apparent that he had “paid” him all of the money.

Rabbeinu Tam understands this Gemora to mean that the borrower denied the entire claim and was liable only for a Rabbinic oath (called a shevuas hesseis). Nevertheless, he took the Sefer Torah in his hand prior to taking the oath. This would prove that one needs to hold a sacred object even by a Rabbinical oath.

He also presents proof to this from the Gemora in Shavuos (41a) which inquires as to the differences between a Biblical oath and a Rabbinical one. The Gemora does not offer this difference; namely, that a Biblical oath would necessitate the holding of a sacred object and a Rabbinical one would not. This proves that a Rabbinical oath also required the holding of a sacred object.

The Gaonim disagree and maintain that one is not required to hold a sacred object when taking a Rabbinical oath. The Meiri writes that our Gemora cannot serve as a proof against this, for we are discussing a case where the borrower decided himself to hold the Sefer Torah. He did this as a ruse in order to get the lender to hold his cane.

According to the Ran’s explanation of our Gemora, there would be no proof at all. For our Gemora is discussing a case where the borrower admitted to part of the claim made against him. Since he wishes to avoid paying the rest of the claim, he is Biblically obligated to take an oath that he does not owe the remainder of the claim. This oath obviously requires him to hold a sacred object.

Read more!

Drinking Wine by Kiddush

The Gemora (Nedarim 4a)explains that the novelty of a chatas nazir is that it cannot be pledged to be brought as a vow. When we asked earlier that this is a trademark of all chatas offerings, it is possible to answer that all other chatas offerings are obviously not brought because they are pledged, as they are obligated to be brought to atone for a sin. However, why is a korban chatas of a nazir brought? [One might therefore have thought the prohibition of delaying vows does not apply to it, which is why the hekeish is needed.]

The Gemora asks: The korban chatas of a woman who gives birth is also not brought for a sin that she committed, but nonetheless we know the prohibition for delaying vows does apply to her korban chatas. [Why should a korban chatas of a nazir be different?]

The Gemora answers: Her korban chatas is still different than that of a nazir, as it enables her to eat kodoshim (korbanos, which she was unable to eat beforehand and is a mitzvah).

The Meiri asks: Doesn’t the chatas offering of a nazir help him that he is now permitted to drink wine?

Tosfos and the Ran answer that drinking wine is a voluntary act, and it is not a mitzvah like the eating of kodoshim.

However, we can ask: What about the mitzvah of drinking wine for kiddush and havdalah? The Gemora Pesachim (106a) derives from the verse Remember the day of Shabbos to sanctify it that there is an obligation to recite kiddush over a cup of wine. Accordingly, we should say that a nazir’s bringing of the korbanos is similar to that of a woman who gave birth; he is bringing the korban in order to be permitted to partake in the mitzvah of drinking wine for kiddush?

The Meiri answers: The mitzvah of drinking the wine for kiddush is only a Rabbinical one, and the korban is not coming for that.

Tosfos explains that although there is a Biblical obligation to recite kiddush with wine, the obligation that the one who recites the blessing should drink the wine is only Rabbinical.

Reb Koby Shapiro in the Hebrew Midrashiya states that there may be a practical difference in halacha whether the mitzvah of drinking the wine is a Biblical one or merely Rabbinical.

It is ruled upon in Shulchan Aruch that a woman is Biblically obligated in the mitzvah of kiddush on Shabbos. Accordingly, she would be allowed to discharge a man of his obligation by reciting the kiddush for him.

The Acharonim raise the following question: When a man comes home from Shul Friday night, he has already fulfilled his Biblical obligation of kiddush in the Shemoneh Esrei of ma’ariv. He still has a Rabbinical obligation to recite the kiddush over a cup of wine. His wife, on the other hand, who did not daven ma’ariv, still has a Biblical obligation to recite kiddush. How can the man, who only has a Rabbinical obligation discharge his wife of her Biblical obligation?

Some answer that she should recite vayechulu prior to kiddush.

Reb Akiva Eiger answers that there is no concern here because of the principle that one who has fulfilled the mitzvah can nevertheless discharge an obligation for someone who did not yet fulfill the mitzvah. This works because every Jew is a guarantor for another. Some Acharonim are not satisfied with this answer because they say that a woman is not included in this guarantee for each other.

The Chasam Sofer answers: It is as if the husband had intention not to fulfill the Biblical obligation of kiddush when he is davening ma’ariv. This way, they are both Biblically obligated in the mitzvah of kiddush.

This entire discussion is based upon the Meiri’s opinion that the mitzvah of drinking the wine is merely a Rabbinical mitzvah. However, if we would hold that there is a Biblical mitzvah to drink the wine of kiddush, then, there would be no discussion, for the husband still has not discharged his own obligation by davening ma’ariv; he still has a Biblical obligation to drink the wine.

Read more!

Biblical and Rabbinical Oath

The Gemora (Kesuvos 88a) had stated: Rav Papa said (regarding the case where there is one witness testifying that the woman collected her kesuvah): A wise husband could bring his wife to take a Biblical oath with the following method: He pays her the kesuvah (a second time) in front of another witness (and now, if se will deny receiving the kesuvah, there will be two witnesses against her) and he claims that the first monies that he paid her were actually a loan (and if she denies the loan, there will be one witness testifying against her; she will be Biblically obligated to take an oath; this will be a case of taking an oath in order to retain the money and it will be a case which doesn’t involve a lien on land)!

The Raavad explains: Even if there is no severity in the Biblical oath more than the Rabbinical one, it is still regarded as advantageous for the husband to force her to be subject to a Biblical oath besides a Rabbinical one.

Rashi explains that there is a halachic severity in taking a Biblical oath. One is required to use the Name of God and hold a Torah scroll when he takes a Biblical oath; a Rabbinical oath does not have this stringency.

Tosfos points out that Rashi himself maintains that a Rabbinical oath of our Mishna is of the same severity as a Biblical oath; it is only an oath instituted by the Amoraim that is treated leniently.

The Rishonim discuss at great length other differences between the two oaths.

Read more!

INTERMINGLED CHILD: WHICH FATHER SHOULD HE HONOR?

Shmuel states that if one Kohen from a group of ten Kohanim had relations with a woman who gave birth to a child, the child is considered a Shtuki. What does Shmuel mean that this child is a “Shtuki?” If he means that he is quieted from claiming inheritance from any of these ten Kohanim when they die, that is obvious! He has no claim, as no one knows who his father really is! It must be that Shmuel means that he is quieted from proclaiming himself to have the laws of a Kohen.

The Gemora asks: What is the reason for this? The verse states regarding Pinchas’ gift of Kehunah, “and it will be for him and his children after him.” This implies that for someone to be a Kohen, his father must be clearly identifiable, something not present in this case.

In the sefer, Korban Chagigah it is written that the child would be required to honor each one of the fathers because honoring one’s father is a Biblical mitzvah, and in cases of uncertainty, we act stringently.

Reb Yosef Engel in Gilyonei Hashas asks: Why don’t the laws of nullification (bittul) apply? We should say that the majority of these men are definitely not his father, and he should therefore be exempt from honoring any of them.

He writes that perhaps the laws of bittul are not applicable by positive commandments. Additionally, he suggests that a person is regarded as being prominent, and therefore they cannot become nullified.

Read more!

TERUMAH FACTS - Yevamos 81 - Daf Yomi

Rashi and many other Rishonim maintain that the requirement to separate terumah from figs and other fruits from a tree is only Rabbinical even in the times of the Beis Hamikdosh. The Biblical obligation of terumah only applies to grain, olives and grapes. The Gemora, that mentions Rabbinical terumah in the times of the Beis Hamikdosh can be referring to figs.

The Rambam (Terumos 2:1) holds that there is a Biblical obligation to separate terumah from all fruits on a tree. The Gemora, that mentions Rabbinical terumah in the times of the Beis Hamikdosh can be referring to vegetables or terumah from any land outside of Eretz Yisroel.

It emerges from our Gemora that there is an argument between Rabbi Yochanan and Rish Lakish if there is a Biblical requirement to separate terumah nowadays. The Rambam (ibid. 26) rules in accordance with Rish Lakish that there is only a Rabbinical obligation to separate terumah nowadays. The Ra’avad disagrees, and states that the halacha follows Rabbi Yochanan.

Read more!

RABBINICAL OFFENSE IS MORE SEVERE - Yevamos 36 - Daf Yomi

The Gemora states that the Rabbis were stricter and strengthened their enactments more than for those of the Torah.

The Gemora in Shabbos (110a) cites the verse in Koheles [10:8]: One who breaks through a stone wall will be bitten by a snake. This is referring to someone who does not heed the words of the Sages. One is not permitted to scoff at the decrees of the Rabbis. The Gemora in Eruvin states that one who transgresses the words of the Chachamim is liable to death at the hand of Heaven.

Rashi in Avoda Zarah (27b) states that even if he will be given medicine for this snake bite and will be healed, other snakes will come and he will eventually die.

The Maharal explains: The Rabbis goal was to erect a fence to safeguard the commandments of the Torah. One who negates these decrees is causing a breakdown for the mitzvos of the Torah. This is why we deal with him so harshly.

Rabbeinu Yonah explains why one who violates a Rabbinical decree is dealt with in a stricter manner than one who transgressed a Torah commandment. One who violates a Biblical prohibition respects the law, but he is motivated by his physical desires to sin. He is not rebuffing his obligation, rather it can be regarded as a momentary slip in his observance. One who violates a Rabbinical enactment does so because of a lack of regard for their decrees. He belittles them on account that they were not written in the Torah and there is no real necessity to keep them. He is rejecting his obligation and therefore deserving of death.

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!