12th CYCLE DEDICATIONS
 
YEVAMOS 31-35 - Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., has dedicated a week of Dafyomi material in loving memory of her husband, Reb Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger. Irving Grunberger helped many people quietly in an unassuming manner and he is dearly missed by all who knew him. His Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan.

1)

(a)We try to establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Chiya and bar Kapara in all three cases by Isur Kolel, according to Rebbi Yosi. What is the Isur Kolel in ...

1. ... Zar she'Shimesh b'Shabbos?

2. ... Ba'al-Mum she'Shimesh b'Tum'ah?

(b)How will bar Kapara then learn the Beraisa where Rebbi Yosi says that he is Chayav both for Achos Ishah and for Eishes Ach?

(c)And how do we reconcile this with the Beraisa where Rebbi Yosi says that he is Chayav two, and which we established when his brother married his wife's sister before he married his wife (making Achos Ishah an Isur Kolel, seeing as he now becomes forbidden to all her sisters)?

1)

(a)We try to establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Chiya and bar Kapara in all three cases by Isur Kolel, according to Rebbi Yosi. The Isur Kolel in ...

1. ... Zar she'Shimesh b'Shabbos - is the fact that initially, the Zar is permitted to perform Melachah, which the Isur Shabbos prohibits.

2. ... Ba'al-Mum she'Shimesh b'Tum'ah - is the fact that a Ba'al-Mum is initially permitted to eat Kodshim, which the Isur Tum'ah forbids.

(b)bar Kapara establishes the Beraisa where Rebbi Yosi rules that he is Chayav both for Achos Ishah and for Eishes Ach - when he married his wife before his brother married her sister, making Eishes Ach an Isur Mosif (because she becomes forbidden to all the brothers, too.

(c)The Beraisa where Rebbi Yosi says that he is Chayav two, and which we established when his brother married his wife's sister before he married his wife (making Achos Ishah an Isur Kolel, seeing as he now becomes forbidden to all her sisters) - was learned by Rebbi Chiya, and bar Kapara does not agree with it.

2)

(a)We conclude however, that it is not possible to establish an Isur Kolel by Zar she'Achal Melikah. Why not?

(b)Then what are Rebbi Chiya and bar Kaparah arguing about?

(c)What exactly is their Machlokes?

2)

(a)We conclude however, that it is not possible to establish an Isur Kolel by Zar she'Achal Melikah however - because before the Melikah, even a Kohen was forbidden to eat the Kohen, in which case, the Isur Zarus and the Isur Melikah came into effect simultaneously.

(b)Rebbi Chiya and bar Kaparah must therefore be arguing about - Isur bas Achas, according to Rebbi Yosi ...

(c)... whether one is Chayav two Korbanos (Rebbi Chiya) or only one (bar Kapara).

3)

(a)How does Isur Bas Achas apply by 'Zar she'Shimesh b'Shabbos'?

(b)There are two ways to apply Isur Bas Achas by 'Ba'al -Mum she'Shimesh b'Tum'ah'. One is identical to that of 'Zar she'Shimesh b'Shabbos'. What is the other?

(c)How will Rebbi Chiya now explain his own opinion and that of bar Kapara? How will he interpret bar Kapara's misinterpretation of Rebbi?

(d)It is bar Kapara's view of Rebbi Chiya that forces us to retract from the current interpretation of the Machlokes. What is the problem with bar Kapara's view of Rebbi Chiya?

3)

(a)Isur Bas Achas applies by 'Zar she'Shimesh b'Shabbos' - when the Zar grows two hairs on Shabbos, thereby becoming liable for both at the same time.

(b)There are two ways to apply Isur Bas Achas by 'Ba'al -Mum she'Shimesh b'Tum'ah'. One is identical to that of 'Zar she'Shimesh b'Shabbos' - the other, when he cuts himself with a Tamei knife.

(c)According to Rebbi Chiya, Rebbi said that Isur bas Achas is Chayav two according to Rebbi Yosi, and one, according to Rebbi Shimon - and bar Kapara erred in thinking that he said one according to Rebbi Yosi.

(d)It is bar Kapara's view of Rebbi Chiya that forces us to retract from the current interpretation of the Machlokes - because if Rebbi said that bas Achas is Chayav only one according to Rebbi Yosi (as he maintains), then in which regard (or according to whom) did Rebbi Chiya hear from Rebbi two? It certainly cannot be according to Rebbi Shimon, who is more lenient than Rebbi Yosi!

4)

(a)So we establish their Machlokes, not according to Rebbi Yosi, but according to Rebbi Shimon. What, in their opinion, does Rebbi Yosi hold?

(b)Why did Rebbi Chiya find it necessary to swear?

(c)What is problematic with the fact that bar Kapara swore too?

4)

(a)So we establish their Machlokes, not according to Rebbi Yosi, but according to Rebbi Shimon. They both agree that, according to Rebbi Yosi - one is Chayav two, both by Isur Kolel and by Isur bas Achas.

(b)Rebbi Chiya found it necessary to swear - in order to take Rebbi Shimon out of his Chazakah (that although, by Isur Kolel he is lenient, and holds that one is Chayav only one, by Isur bas Achas, he subscribes to the strict opinion, that one is Chayav two).

(c)The problem with bar Kapara is - why he found it necessary to swear too, seeing as, in his opinion, Rebbi Shimon rules leniently by bas Achas, just like he does by Isur Kolel, swearing was unnecessary!

5)

(a)How does bar Kapara now explain (what in his eyes, is) Rebbi Chiya's mistake? What was Rebbi really referring to when he said that one is Chayav two?

(b)And how does Rebbi Chiya now explain (what in his eyes, is) bar Kapara's mistake? When did Rebbi say that one is Chayav two and when did he say one?

(c)According to Rebbi Chiya, which is the more stringent, Isur Kolel or Isur Bas Achas?

5)

(a)According to bar Kapara, Rebbi said that Isur bas Achas is Chayav one according to Rebbi Shimon, and two, according to Rebbi Yosi - and Rebbi Chiya erred inasmuch as he thought that when Rebbi said two, it was according to Rebbi Shimon.

(b)Whereas according to Rebbi Chiya, Rebbi said that one is Chayav one according to Rebbi Shimon, with regard to Isur Kolel by Zar she'Shimesh b'Shabbos and Ba'al-Mum she'Shimesh b'Tum'ah. bar Kapara's mistake was - to include Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah (which applies by Isur bas Achas, but not by Isur Kolel) on his own volition. Later, he forgot that it was he who had added it, and thought that Rebbi had said all three. So he inferred (wrongly) that in the opinion of Rebbi, Rebbi Shimon holds that one is Chayav only one even by bas Achas.

(c)According to Rebbi Chiya - Isur bas Achas is more stringent than Isur Kolel, seeing as even Rebbi Shimon agrees that one is Chayav two.

33b----------------------------------------33b

6)

(a)We cite a Beraisa which lists the cases where, according to Rebbi Yosi, one is Chayav two, and according to Rebbi Shimon, only one). Which two of the three current cases under current discussion does the Tana list and which one does it omit?

(b)What can we extrapolate from the fact that he omits 'Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah'?

(c)What do we now prove from there?

(d)How do we know that the Tana omits Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah because of Rebbi Shimon, and not because of Rebbi Yosi?

6)

(a)We cite a Beraisa which lists the cases where, according to Rebbi Yosi, one is Chayav two, and according to Rebbi Shimon, only one). It lists - Zar she'Shimesh b'Shabbos and Ba'al-Mum she'Shimesh b'Tum'ah, omitting Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah.

(b)We can extrapolate from his omission of 'Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah' - that even Rebbi Shimon will agree that there, one is Chayav two, because only Isur bas Achas applies to it ...

(c)... a proof for Rebbi Chiya, and a Kashya on bar Kapara.

(d)We know that the Tana omits Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah because of Rebbi Shimon and not because of Rebbi Yosi - because, according to Rebbi Yosi, if one is Chayav two for cases of Isur Kolel, then how much more so for that of Isur bas Achas.

7)

(a)Why can 'Zar she'Shimesh b'Shabbos ... ' not be referring to a Zar who performed ...

1. ... Shechitah on Shabbos?

2. ... Kabalah or Holachah?

3. ... Haktarah?

(b)Rav Acha bar Yakov therefore establishes that Rebbi Yosi must be talking about a Zar whoi Shechts the Kohen Gadol Par on Yom Kippur. On what grounds is this opinion not unanimous? Why would some opinions disagree with that?

(c)Why did Rebbi Yosi then speak about a Zar, seeing as even a Kohen Hedyot is Pasul?

7)

(a)'Zar she'Shimesh b'Shabbos ... ' cannot be referring to a Zar who performed ...

1. ... Shechitah on Shabbos - because a Zar is eligible to Shecht Kodshim.

2. ... Kabalah or Holachah - because these Avodos do not comprise a Melachah, only Tiltul (moving the blood - which is only an Isur d'Rabanan).

3. ... Haktarah - because, according to Rebbi Yosi, making a fire on Shabbos is only a Lav which does not carry with it a Chiyuv Kares.

(b)Rav Achah bar Yakov therefore establishes Rebbi Yosi by the Shechitah of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur - according to those who hold that this is Kasher only through the Kohen Gadol (like most of the other Avodos on Yom Kippur), but not according to those who permit a Zar to Shecht it (like he is permitted to Shecht other Kodshim).

(c)Rebbi Yosi speaks about a Zar, despite the fact that even a Kohen Hedyot is Pasul - because 'Zar' simply means anyone who is not qualified to perform the Avodah in question (in this case, anyone other than the Kohen Gadol).

8)

(a)According to Rav Ashi, Zar she'Shimesh b'Shabbos is referring to a Zar who made Haktarah on Shabbos (see Tosfos Yeshanim). How does he resolve the initial problem that Rebbi Yosi considers making a fire on Shabbos no more than an ordinary Lav?

(b)So how does he explain the two Isurim, according to Rebbi Yosi?

8)

(a)According to Rav Ashi, Zar she'Shimesh b'Shabbos is referring to a Zar who made Haktarah on Shabbos. And the initial problem that Rebbi Yosi considers making a fire on Shabbos no more than an ordinary Lav, he resolves - by pointing out that Rebbi Yosi does not mention Chata'os or even Lavin; he merely refers to two Isurim.

(b)And he explains - that, according to Rebbi Yosi, the two Isurim warrant his burial in the Beis ha'Kevaros of complete Resha'im (Nisrafim v'Niskalim), as we learned earlier in the Sugya.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses two people who switch their wives on the way to the Chupah, who are Chayav because of Eishes Ish. What if they are also ...

1. ... sisters?

2. ... Nidos?

(b)And what if the two men are also brothers?

9)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses two people who switch their wives on the way to the Chupah, who are Chayav because of Eishes Ish. In the event that the two women are also ...

1. ... sisters - they are Chayav for Achos Ishto, too (and must bring two Chata'os).

2. ... Nidos - they are also Chayav for Nidah (in which case they are obligated to bring three Chata'os).

(b)If the two men are also brothers - in addition to the above, they are also Chayav for Eishes Ach too (and they have to bring four Chata'os).

10)

(a)Why is it, that before taking their wives back, they must first wait three months?

(b)On what condition do they not need to wait?

(c)Finally, what does the Mishnah say about the women should they be Kohanos?

10)

(a)The Tana requires them to wait three months before taking their wives back - to prevent a mix-up, should they be pregnant, and, when the baby is born they will not know whether it is a ninth month baby from the first man or a seventh month baby from the second one (in which case the babies will be Mamzerim, besides many complications regarding Kibud Av).

(b)They do not need to wait however if they were Ketanos.

(c)The Mishnah finally rules that if women are Kohanos - they are invalidated from eating Terumah.

11)

(a)It is unusual for Tana'im to speak about blatant Resha'im. In addition, we know from a Beraisa learned by Rebbi Chiya that the Tana of our Mishnah must be speaking about a switch that took place by mistake, and not on purpose. What does Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa say?

(b)How does Rav Yehudah reconcile the Lashon of our Mishnah 've'Hichlifu', implying that they did so on purpose, with the Beraisa?

(c)How do we try to prove this from the Seifa of the Mishnah, which precludes a Ketanah from this Din, and a wife who commits adultery (even a Ketanah we presume), is forbidden to remain with her husband?

(d)On what grounds do we refute that proof?

(e)How do we nevertheless prove it from the Seifa 'Mafrishin Osan Sheloshah Chodashim, Shema Me'ubaros Hen'? What can we infer from there that proves our current explanation correct)?

11)

(a)It is unusual for Tana'im to speak about blatant Resha'im. In addition, we know from a Beraisa learned by Rebbi Chiya that the Tana of our Mishnah must be speaking about a switch that took place by mistake, and not on purpose, because the Tana specifically states - that, all in all, sixteen Chata'os are brought, (and Chata'os are only brought when the sin was performed b'Shogeg).

(b)Rav Yehudah reconciles the Lashon of our Mishnah 'v'Hichlifu' (implying deliberately) with the Beraisa, by amending it 'v'Hichlifu' to 'v'Huchlefu'.

(c)We try to prove this from the Seifa of our Mishnah,which precludes a Ketanah from this Din (permitting her to return to her husband immediately) - and a wife who commits adultery b'Mezid is normally forbidden to return to her husband.

(d)We refute that proof however - by restricting the distinction between seduction and rape to a Gedolah (who has full Da'as), but, as far as a Ketanah is concerned, her seduction is considered rape (meaning that she is always considered a Shogeg).

(e)We nevertheless prove it from the Seifa 'Mafrishin Osan Sheloshah Chodashim, Shema Me'ubaros Hen', from which we infer - that if we would know with certainty that they were not pregnant, they would be permitted to return to their husbands immediately (and it would seem, from the fact that, after three months, they are permitted anyway), which would not be the case, had they switched deliberately.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF