More Discussions for this daf
1. Punishment for relations with a step-relative 2. Sheniyos 3. Father's Father?
4. Blood grandmother not Ervah mi'd'Oraisa 5. What difference does a generation make 6. שניות
DAF DISCUSSIONS - YEVAMOS 21

Yaakov Saibil asked:

Two questions:

1. On daf 21a, the gemara learns there is a remez to shnios from the posuk about the Canaanite inhabitants as follows: That the Canaanites did certain toevos kashos, therefore there must be toevos rachos (which, it is implied in the posuk, they didn't do). But if the toevos rachos were kal, as Rashi says, then it would seem that Canaanite inhabitants ought to have done them as well - which leaves us with a remez that is a stira to pshat in the posuk!?

2. How is it that R'Yehuda's and R'Oshayas ramazim to shnios in the Torah are from psukim not in the chumash?

Yaakov Saibil, RBS A, Israel

The Kollel replies:

1. I don't see where it is implied in the Pasuk that the Canaanites did not do the To'eivos Rachos. I learned Pshat that the Torah states explicitly that the Canaanites did even the severe To'eivos. The fact that the Torah calls some of them severe implies that there are other To'eivos which are lighter. One can assume from a Kal v'Chomer that the Caananites did these also. However the Torah only publicised the Kashos.

In addition it seems to me that the To'eivos Rachos were not actually forbidden to the Canaanites. This is because even to Yisrael they are only forbidden mid'Rabanan (see Mishnah above 20a that Sheniyos are from the words of the scribes - Rashi there writes that this is a Gezeirah. So even though the Gemara here states that there is a hint to the Sheniyos from the Torah, nevertheless this is only a hint but does not have the status of a d'Oraisa). Chazal did not extend this prohibition to Nochrim (see Rambam Hilchos Melachim 9:5 that a Ben Noach is only forbidden to marry his mother, his father's wife, a married woman or his maternal sister).

However the lighter ones are also called To'eivos even though they are only forbidden to Yisroel mid'Rabanan (see Gemara above 20a that someone who does not keep a d'Rabanan is termed a Rasha. In a similar way one can say that an Isur d'Rabanan is called a To'eivah for a Yisrael).

2. Based on the above, your second question can also be answered. Rav Yehudah and Rav Oshaya bring hints to Sheniyos from Nach because Sheniyos are not d'Oraisa, so they do not require a Pasuk from the Chumash. The Gemara here also states that if the Gezeirah of Sheniyos did not exist, one might come to stumble on an "Ervah" - i.e. Sheniyos are d'Rabanan and Ervah is d'Oraisa.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Yaakov Saibil responded:

Dear R' Bloom,

Thank you so much for responding!

(1) The way it seems to me to be implied in the posuk that the Canaanites did only the toevos kashos is because it says 'aileh,' meaning, seemingly, that the Canaanites did these and not others. Is that not the pashut pshat in the posuk? Why did you learn the posuk as 'even' those toevos?

(2) I understood that a drabbanan din doesn't need to be in the chumash or in nach at all, rather it is something enacted by Sages with the authority given to them. But here the gemara is looking for a remez from the Torah; at least that's how the gemara begins 'remez min haTorah mnain?' So my question is why does it offer two answers of four to this question from nach when it originally states that it is looking for a remez from the Torah?

Much thanks,

Yaakov Saibil

The Kollel replies:

Dear Reb Yaakov, Nero Yair,

Thanks very much for your reply.

(1) Vayikra 18:6-26 lists all the forbidden relationships for Klal Yisrael and what will happen, Chas v'Shalom, if we do not observe them. Then, in Pasuk 27, the Torah says "For all these severe ("ha'Eil") To'eivos were done by the people who were in the Land before you". The emphasis here is not to be able to infer the To'eivos that the Canaanites did not do from the To'eivos that they did do, but rather the Torah is stressing that even though there are so many prohibitions and that they are so severe (as we learn from the word "Eil" as the Gemara says here), nevertheless the Canaanites transgressed them all, and that is why the Land spewed them out.

It is true that the Gemara here does infer something from the word "ha'Eil" - namely that since the Torah states that there are harsh prohibitions, this implies that there are also lighter prohibitions. However the Gemara does not make the implication that you suggest - that since it says they did the severe To'eivos this implies that they did not do the lighter ones. The truth us that the Torah does not always say a Pasuk in order to make a "Diyuk" from it, but rather the most important thing is the simple meaning of the words. (See Gemara above 11b that the Pasuk never leaves its simple meaning). Sometimes Chazal infer something from the Pasuk, but when they do not it is hard for us to know when to do this on our own. Let's be honest. Without the help of Chazal we would have never learned on our own from this Pasuk that there are lighter prohibitions of Sheniyos. Similarly, I am suggesting that we cannot make a Diyuk that the Canaanites did the severe To'eivos but not the lighter ones, especially as the conclusion of the Diyuk is illogical because if they did the To'eivos Kashos, then there seems to be a Kal v'Chomer that they also did the To'eivos Rachos.

So, in short, my argument is that it is not the Pashut Pshat in the Pasuk that they did "Eileh" - these To'eivos and not others. Rather this is called a Diyuk.

(2) I hear your question that since the Gemara starts off by looking for a hint in the Torah, how can Rav Yehudah and Rav Oshaya bring us Pesukim from Kesuvim? However what I think you have to say is that when the Gemara here says "Torah", in this particular case it does not mean specifically Chumash but rather any of the 24 books of the Torah. The Gemara (Berachos 5a) states that these were also given to Moshe on Sinai, so it could be that this is also what the Gemara means here when it says Torah. Especially when you consider that the Gemara says that this is only a hint. It is easier to understand that the hint is in Nach, not in the Torah itself, since anyway the Din will not have the full status of a d'Oraisa.

You wrote that a d'Rabanan Din doesn't need to be in the Chumash or Nach at all, rather it is something enacted by the Sages with the authority given to them. However, see Chidushei ha'Ritva Rosh Hashanah 16a DH v'Ha d'Parish who explains a different thinking behind the d'Rabanan Dinim which are hinted at in the Pesukim. The Ritva writes that anything which has an Asmachta from a verse means that ha'Kados Baruch Hu is pointing out that this is a good thing to do. However Hash-m did not say that it is obligatory but rather he handed over the matter to the Chachamim to decide if and when this Mitzvah should apply. This is included in the command of the Torah (Devarim 17:10) "You shall do according to whatever they tell you". The Ritva writes that this is the reason we always find that the Chachamim give a proof or a rememberance or an Asmachta from the Torah for their words. This means that Chazal did not make up any new Halachos on their own, but in fact all of the Oral Torah is hinted at in the perfect Written Torah. The Ritva concludes that, Chas v'Shalom, the Torah is not missing anything, because all the Halachos that Chazal instituted are already hinted at in the Torah.

Chodesh Tov

Dovid Bloom