1) TOSFOS DH NASA ACHOSO MIN HA'EIM YOTZI

תוספות ד"ה נשא אחותו מן האם יוציא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discuss Rashi's explanation, that all a Ger's maternal relatives are forbidden, because we are afraid that they will otherwise say in derision that they have come from a stricter Kedushah to a more lenient one, which they prove from the Gemara in Yevamos. Rashi himself however, seems to contradict himself in Perek Nos'in in Yevamos, where he gives a different reason, which has Halachic ramifications [which Tosfos reject based on the very same Sugya in Yevamos]. Tosfos query Rashi however, from the Gemara of the sons of Yudan that we just discussed, which implies that the reason is because of 'Ichlufi', and from another Gemara in Yevamos [as Rashi himself explains there]. Tosfos conclude that min ha'Torah, B'nei No'ach are permitted to marry their maternal relations, and with regard to Geirim, both of the above reasons are needed, since there are cases where the one is applicable and not the other' and where neither reason applies, the woman is indeed permitted. Tosfos finally reject Rashi's explanation on the Gemara's Kashya from R. Meir on R. Meir, proving that it is from 'Mutar be'Eishes Aviv u'va'Chamoso' that it is asking, and not from 'Asur ba'Achoso va'Achos Aviv va'Achos Imo').

פ"ה, שלא יאמרו 'באנו מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה';

(a) Explanation #1 (Part 1): So that they should not say 'We have come from a stricter Kedushah to a more lenient one!' ...

דסבר ר"מ אחותו מן האם אסור לבני נח, ואפי' אחות אביו מן האם ואחות האם מן האם, וכדיליף רבי אליעזר לקמן מ"על כן יעזב איש את אביו ואת אמו".

(b) Explanation #1 (Part 2): Because R. Meir holds that a maternal sister is forbidden to the B'nei No'ach, and even a maternal sister of his father or of his mother, as R. Eliezer will learn later from the Pasuk "Al-kein Ya'azov Ish es Aviv ve'es Imo".

וכפירוש זה משמע בפ"ב דיבמות (דף כב. ושם) דבעו במערבא 'גזרו שניות בגרים או לא?' וקאמר 'השתא ערוה, אי לאו משום 'שלא יאמרו באנו מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה' לא גזרו בה רבנן, שניות מיבעיא?'

(c) Proof (Part 1): This explanation is borne out in the second Perek of Yevamos, where they asked in Eretz Yisrael whether the Chachamim decreed Sheniyos by Geirim or not ...

וקאמר 'השתא ערוה, אי לאו משום 'שלא יאמרו באנו מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה' לא גזרו בה רבנן, שניות מיבעיא?'

(d) Proof (Part 2): And the Gemara replies 'Now that that Ervah, if not for the concern that they may say 'We have come from a stricter Kedushah to a more lenient one!', they would not have issued a decree forbidding it, how much more so Sheniyos!'

אבל בפ' נושאין (יבמות צז:) פ"ה דהיינו טעמא ד'אחותו מן האם יוציא', דגזרינן שמא ישא אחותו שנולדה אחריו, דאיכא איסורא דאורייתא.

(e) Query (Part 1): Rashi in Yevamos however, ascribes the ruling that a Ger is obligated to divorce his maternal sister to the fear that he might then marry a sister who is born later, which is an Isur d'Oraysa.

משמע לאותו הפירוש, דהורתו ולידתו שלא בקדושה, דליכא למיחש לאיסורא דאורייתא, לא מיתסר באחותו מן האם.

(f) Query (Part 2): Implying that there where both the pregnancy and the birth were she'Lo bi'Kedushah (when he was a Nochri and), where there is no question of an Isur d'Oraysa, his maternal sister is permitted.

ואי אפשר לומר כן, כדאמרי' התם (דף צז:) גבי 'בני יודן אמתא אישתחרור, דהורתן ולידתן שלא בקדושה הוה', ואסר להו רב ששת למינסב נשי דהדדי'

(g) Refutation: It is impossible to say this however, seeing as the Gemara says there with regard to the sons of Yudan the maidservant who were set free (where both their pregnancy and birth were she'Lo bi'Kedusha), yet Rav Sheishes forbade them to marry each other's wives.

מיהו קשה, דבההיא ד'בני יודן אמתא' משמע דלא הוי טעמא משום 'שמא יאמרו באין מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה', אלא משום 'דילמא אתי לאיחלופי בישראל.

(h) Question (Part 1): However the Gemara concerning the sons of Yudan the maidservant that we just cited, implies that the reason for the prohibition is not because 'Shema Yomru' (they may say 'We have come ... '), but because of 'Ichlufi' (one might come to confuse them with a Yisrael) ...

דקאמר 'מן האם ולא מן האב כ"ע לא פליגי דאסור, כי פליגי מן האב ומן האם'.

(i) Question (Part 2): Since the Gemara says there that all everyone agree with regard to maternal brothers are prohibited, and that the dispute there is confined to brothers that share both the same father and the same mother ...

ואי משום שמא יאמרו... ', אמאי שרי התם מן האב ומן האם

(j) Question (Part 3): Now if the reason was due to 'Shema Yomru ... ', on what grounds would anyone permit the latter case?

? אבל אי משום 'איחלופי'. ניחא, כיון דאיכא צד אב לא אתי לאיחלופי, דכותים לית להו קורבת אב ולא שייך למיגזר בהו אטו ישראל.

(k) Question (Part 4): This is not a problem if the reason is because of 'Ichlufi' - because, seeing as in the current case there is a relationship from the father's side, and a paternal relationship is not applicable to Nochrim, the decree will not apply.

וכן משמע בפ"ב דיבמות (דף כב.) דטעמא משום 'איחלופי', דאמר אמימר 'אפילו אחים מן האם מעידין לכתחלה' ומאי שנא מערוה? 'ערוה לכל מסורה, עדות לב"ד מסורה',

(l) Precedent (Part 1): And from the Gemara in the second Perek of Yevamos too, it would seem that the reason is because of 'Ichlufi', because Ameimar there permits even maternal brothers to testify, and the Gemara goes on to attribute the difference between testifying and Ervah (where they are forbidden) to the fact that 'Ervah is handled by everyone, whereas terstimony is handled by Beis-Din' ...

משמע דטעמא דערוה משום דאתי לאיחלופי בישראל.

(m) Precedent (Part 2): Implying that the reason by Ervah is because of 'Ichlufi' (which applies to Beis-Din) and not because of 'Shema Yomru' (which does not).

וכן פירש הקונטרס התם 'ערוה לכל מסורה' - הכל נושאין נשים, ואי שרית להו לקיימה, אתו נמי למישרי ערוה לישראל.

(n) Support: And indeed, Rashi there comments 'Ervah is handled by everyone' - Everybody marries women, and if one permits them to remain married, they will also come to permit Arayos to a Yisrael'.

וי"ל, דבן נח לא אסור באחותו אפי' מן האם, והני תרי טעמי צריכי; דיש מקומות דשייך האי טעמא דלא שייך האי אידך טעמא, כגון 'נשא אחותו מן האם', דמשום שמא יאמרו ליכא למיחש, ומשום איחלופי איכא למיחש.

(o) Answer (Part 1): In fact, a Ben No'ach is not forbidden to marry even his maternal sister (min ha'Torah), and the two reasons are both needed, since there are times where one of the reasons is applicable and not the other, such as someone who marries his maternal sister, where 'Shema Yomru' is not applicable, whereas 'Ichlufi is.

ואשת אביו לר' עקיבא, ואחות אביו לרבי אליעזר, דאסירי לבני נח, יש לאסור משום 'שמא יאמרו ... ', אבל משום 'איחלופי' ליכא למיגזר בקורבת אב, דהכל יודעין דרחמנא אפקריה לזרעיה דכותי.

(p) Answer (Part 2): On the other hand, his father's wife according to R. Akiva, and his father's sister according to R. Eliezer, which are prohibited to the B'nei No'ach, which we will forbid due to 'Shema Yomru', but not on account of 'Ichlufi', which is not applicable in cases of paternal relationships (since everybody that the Torah rendered Hefker the seed of a Nochri).

ואשת אביו לר"א, ואחות אביו לר"ע שריא - דלאו משום 'שמא יאמרו' איכא, ולא משום 'איחלופי' איכא.

(q) Answer (Part 3): Whereas his father's wife according to R Eliezer, and his father's sister according to R. Akiva, are permitted - seeing as neither 'Shema Yomru' nor 'Ichlufi' applies.

והשתא הא דפריך דרבי מאיר א'דרבי מאיר, לא כמו שפירש הקונט' דפריך נמי מדקתני 'אסור באחותו ואחות אביו ואחות אמו', אע"ג דאין ב"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליהם.

1. Explanation #1: When the Gemara asks from R. Meir on R. Meir, Rashi explains that it is also asking from the fact that he rules 'Asur ba'Achoso va'Achos Aviv va'Achos Imo', even though Beis-Din shel Yisrael do not sentence to death an account of them.

דהמ"ל בכולהו דלא אסור משום דנאסרו בהיותם כותים, אלא משום אחלופי, כדאמר באחותו.

2. Refutation: This is not correct, seeing as we could have answered that all three cases are not forbidden because they were forbidden whilst they were still Nochrim, but because of 'Ichlufi', like the Gemara says in the case of Achoso.

ולא פריך דר"מ אדר"מ אלא מדקתני 'מותר באשת אביו ובחמותו', אע"ג דב"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליהם

3. Explanation #2: In fact, the Gemara is asking on R. Meir from his ruling 'Mutar be'Eishes Aviv u'va'Chamoso', even though Beis-Din of Yisrael sentence to death on account of them.

וכן כתוב בכל הספרים לעיל - 'וסבר ר"מ 'כל ערוה שב"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליהם. בני נח מוזהרין עליהם, והתניא ... '?

4. Support: And this is evident in the standard text above, which reads 'And does R. Meir really hold that every Ervah which Beis-Din sentence to death, the B'nei No'ach are warned? Have we not learned in a Beraisa ... '?

משמע דלא קשיא ליה אלא מהא.

5. Conclusion: A clear indication that it is from 'Mutar be'Eishes Aviv u'va'Chamoso' (exlusively) that the Gemara is asking.

58b----------------------------------------58b

2) TOSFOS DH MIPNEI MAH LO NASA ADAM ES BITO

תוספות ד"ה מפני מה לא נשא אדם את בתו

שכשאכלה חוה מעץ הדעת, היתה ראויה למות מיד.

(a) Clarification (Part 1): When Chavah ate from the Tree of Knowledge, she deserved to die immediately ...

ואי משום אדם שהיה שרוי בלא אשה, היה יכול ליקח בתו.

(b) Clarification (Part 2): As for Adam remaining without a wife, he could have married his daughter.

ומסיק כדי שישא קין את אחותו.

(c) Conclusion: The Gemara concludes that the reason that this didn't happen, was to enable Kayin to marry his sister.

3) TOSFOS DH MI IKA MIDI DE'LE'YISRAEL SHARI U'LE'KUTI ASUR

תוספות ד"ה מי איכא מידי דלישראל שרי ולכותי אסור

(SUMMARY: After extrapolating both from here and from the Gemara in Nedarim that unnatural intimacy is permitted, Tosfos gos on to explain why the Gemara in Yevamos then equates unnatural relations with the sin of Er ve'Onan).

משמע דלישראל מותר באשתו בשלא כדרכה.

(a) Inference: This implies that a man is permitted to have unnatural relations with his wife.

וכן משמע בסוף פ"ב דנדרים (דף כ:) 'ההיא איתתא דאתיא קמיה דרבי, אמרה לו "רבי, ערכתי לו שלחן והפכו!" אמר לה "בתי, התורה התירה לו.

(b) Precedence: And this is borne out by the Gemara in the second Perek of Nedarim, in the case of the woman who came before Rebbi and told him that she had 'prepared the table' for her husband, but that he had overturned it. To which Rebbi replied that the Torah permits him to do that (and that there was nothing he could do about it).

ולאו היינו היא למעלה והוא למטה, דמה מפסדת בכך? אלא שלא כדרכה, שמצערתה, כדאמר התם "אם תענה את בנותי" - שלא כדרכן.

(c) Clarification (Part 1): She cannot have been referring to them changing positions (she on top and he underneath), because on what grounds would she then have objected? Consequently, she can only have been referring to unnatural relations, which causes the woman pain, as the Gemara says there, citing Lavan, who said to Ya'akov "If you afflict my daughters" (with reference to unnatural relations.

ואמר "וישכב אותה" - כדרכה; "ויענה" - שלא כדרכה.

(d) Clarification (Part 2): As the Gemara explains with regard to Sh'chem and Dinah "And he lay with her", 'naturally', "and he afflicted her", 'unnaturally'.

וקשה, דבספ"ג דיבמות (דף לד:) חשיב שלא כדרכה מעשה ער ואונן?

(e) Question: At the end of the third Perek of Yevamos, the Gemara equates unnatural relations with the sin of Er ve'Onan?

וי"ל, דלא אסיר אלא שעושה כך תדיר, שלא תתעבר ויכחיש יופיה; אבל אם רוב תשמישו כדרכה אלא שבאקראי מתאוה לה שלא כדרכה, שרי.

(f) Answer: That is only if one indulges in that sort of behavior constantly, to prevent his wife from becoming pregnant, so as not to spoil her beauty, but if he generally performs a natural Bi'ah, and unnatural Bi'os only on odd occasions when he has an urge to do so, it doesn't matter.

4) TOSFOS DH KATZ YADA

תוספות ד"ה קץ ידא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that this is a Halachah, and not just a K'nas, like Rashi learns,, and he cites a similar Gemara in Nidah which specifically refers to this punishment as a Halachah. They agree with Rashi however, that it is restricted to someone who is accustomed to performing the sin regularly, not just once).

פ"ה, שהיה רגיל להכות את חבירו, וקנסו בכך.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he was accustomed to striking his friend, an that cutting off his hand is a penalty for doing so.

וי"ל, דדינא הוא, דהא מקרא דריש "וזרוע רמה תשבר".

(b) Explanation #2: One can also learn that it is a lawful punishment, seeing as we learn it from the Pasuk "u'Zero'a Rasha Tishaver".

ובפ' כל היד (נדה דף יג: ושם) גבי 'יד לאמה תקצץ', אמר 'דינא תנן, כדרב הונא; דרב הונא קץ ידא'. אלמא, דינא הוא.

(c) Proof: In fact, the Gemara in 'Kol ha'Yad' explains that the ruling "The hand off the person that touches his penis should be cut off' is Halachah, based on Rav Huna, who actually carried it out. Presumably here too, the ruling is Halachah.

והא דאשכחן בפ' ד' וה' (ב"ק דף לז.) גבי חנן בישא, דרב הונא גופיה לא חייבו אלא ממון?

(d) Question: Then why did Rav Huna himself not cut off the hand of Chanah Bisha for striking his friend, in keeping wit his ruling here?

שאני הכא, דמועד ורגיל בכך היה להכות באגרוף, דדיניה הוא בכך

(e) Answer (Part 1): Here is different, because it speaks where the culprit is accustomed to striking his fellow-Jew (like Rashi explained), and not just once.

וכן 'יד לאמה' רגיל בכך

(f) Answer (Part 2): Likewise, the Gemara in Nidah is speaking about someone who touches his penis constantly.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF