(a)We just concluded that Rav and Rebbi Chiya include Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo in our Mishnah, despite the fact that 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh Muteres la'Zeh' regarding it only applies according to Rebbi Shimon. What does Rebbi, who does not include any case that involves Machlokes in our Mishnah, say about this?
(b)Rav Ada Karchina quoting Rava, reconciles Rebbi with Rav and Rebbi Chiya by explaining Rebbi's displeasure with Levi's original query (as to why the Tana did not insert a sixteenth case) differently. How does he explain it?
(c)Which half will apply and which will not, if Yakov raped ...
1. ... two sisters?
2. ... two strangers?
1)
(a)We just concluded that Rav and Rebbi Chiya include Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo in our Mishnah, despite the fact that 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh Muteres la'Zeh' regarding it, only applies according to Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi, who does not include any case that involves Machlokes in our Mishnah - disagrees with Rebbi Chiya's Klalim.
(b)Rav Ada Karchina quoting Rava, reconciles Rebbi with Rav and Rebbi Chiya by explaining Rebbi's displeasure with Levi's original query (as to why the Tana did not insert a sixteenth case) differently. According to him, Rebbi was displeased with Levi - on the grounds that either half of Rebbi Chiya's statement (va'Achosah she'Hi Yevimtah ... ha'Asurah la'Zeh, Muteres la'Zeh') will apply to Imo Anusas Aviv, but not both simultaneously.
(c)If Yakov raped ...
1. ... two sisters - then 'Achosah she'Hi Yevimtah' will apply, but not 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh, Muteres la'Zeh', since both sisters are forbidden to both brothers, one because of Imo, the other, because of Achos ha'Eim.
2. ... two strangers - then 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh, Muteres la'Zeh' will apply, but not 'Achosah she'Hi Yevimtah ... ', since they are not sisters.
2)
(a)According to Rav Ashi, Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Chiya anyway; nor is he concerned about the Tana getting involved in a Machlokes. Then on what basis did Rebbi dismiss Levi's query? Why can Imo Anusas Aviv not be inserted in our Mishnah?
(b)He (Rav Ashi) extrapolates from the next Mishnah, which says 'Shesh Arayos Chamuros me'Eilu Mipnei she'Hen Nesu'os la'Acherim ... Imo', that the author must be Rebbi Yehudah. How do we know that the Mishnah is speaking about Imo Anusas Aviv?
(c)How does he extrapolate from there that the author must be Rebbi Yehudah?
2)
(a)According to Rav Ashi, Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Chiya anyway; nor is he concerned about the Tana getting involved in a Machlokes. Rebbi dismissed Levi's query - because Imo Anusas Aviv cannot be inserted in our Mishnah according to Rebbi Yehudah, who is the author of our Mishnah, as we shall now see.
(b)He (Rav Ashi) extrapolates from the next Mishnah, which says 'Shesh Arayos Chamuros me'Eilu Mipnei she'Hen Nesu'os la'Acherim ... Imo', that the author must be Rebbi Yehudah. We know that the Mishnah is speaking about Imo Anusas Aviv - because the alternative would be Eishes Aviv, who is already mentioned there independently.
(c)He extrapolates from there 'Mipnei she'Hein Nesu'os la'Acherim', 'la'Acherim In, l'Achim Lo', that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids Anusas Aviv.
3)
(a)How do we refute Ravina's query that maybe our Mishnah speaks about his mother whom his father had raped, and whom his brother married illegally, in which case the author could even be Rebbi Yehudah?
(b)Rav Ashi asked Rav Kahana that it is possible to establish Anusas Aviv in our Mishnah according to Rebbi Yehudah, even without his brother having performed a sin. How is this possible?
(c)What did Rav Kahana answer him?
(d)Did Levi concede to Rebbi that it is impossible to insert Imo Anusas Aviv in our Mishnah?
3)
(a)We refute Ravina's query that maybe our Mishnah speaks about his mother whom his father had raped, and whom his brother married illegally, in which case the author could even be Rebbi Yehudah - with the principle 'de'I Lo ka'Tani' (our Tana does not deal with cases of bedi'Eved).
(b)Rav Ashi asked Rav Kahana that it is possible to establish Anusas Aviv in our Mishnah according to Rebbi Yehudah, even without his brother having performed a sin - in a case where his father raped the wife of his son Reuven who bore a son, Shimon. Then Reuven died and his wife fell to Shimon for Yibum.
(c)Rav Kahana answered him - that our Mishneh is speaking about a brother who was born b'Heter, and not one who was born b'Isur.
(d)Levi did not concede to Rebbi that it is impossible to insert Imo Anusas Aviv in our Mishnah - as we shall now see.
10b----------------------------------------10b
4)
(a)Levi writes in his Mishnah, that sometimes the Yavam's mother does not exempt her Tzarah from Yibum, and sometimes, she does. In which case, does she ...
1. ... not exempt her?
2. ... exempt her?
(b)When does Levi list sixteen cases, in spite of Rebbi?
(c)In which point does Levi argue with Rebbi?
4)
(a)Levi writes in his Mishnah, that sometimes the Yavam's mother does not exempt her Tzarah from Yibum, and sometimes, she does. She does ...
1. ... not exempt her - if she was married to his father, before his brother 'married' her, because his brother's Kidushin was not valid (since 'Kidushin with a Chiyuv Kares is not valid), so she did not in fact, fall to Yibum.
2. ... exempt her - if his father only raped her, because then, his brother's Kidushin is valid, in which case, she does fall to Yibum, from which she is exempt, and therefore exempts her Tzarah.
(b)Levi lists sixteen cases, in spite of Rebbi - in the latter case, when his brother sinned by marrying the woman that his father had raped (in spite of the fact that she was forbidden to him, according to Rebbi Yehudah).
(c)He argues with Rebbi - inasmuch as he does learn 'de'I' in the Mishnah, whereas Rebbi does not.
5)
(a)Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan that according to Levi, who learns d'I, the Tana could also have inserted the case of a brother who betrothed his Yevamah after having performed Chalitzah with her. What did Rebbi Yochanan reply?
(b)What could Rebbi Yochanan have replied, based to his personal opinion?
(c)Then why did he not do so?
5)
(a)Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan that according to Levi, who learns d'I, the Tana could also have inserted the case of a brother who betrothed his Yevamah after having performed Chalitzah with her. Rebbi Yochanan replied - that the Tana could not possibly have inserted this in our Mishnah, because her Tzarah is forbidden to all the brothers, in which case, it is not subject to Tzaras Tzarah.
(b)According to his personal opinion, Rebbi Yochanan could have replied - that seeing as there is only a Lav on a Chalutzah, the brothers could even perform Yibum with her (min ha'Torah), and are therefore obligated to perform Chalitzah (even mid'Rabanan), so it certainly does not belong in our Mishnah.
(c)He did not do so however - in order to answer Resh Lakish on his (Resh Lakish's) own terms.
6)
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei " ... Asher Lo Yivneh es Beis Achiv"?
(b)How does Resh Lakish derive his opinion (cited in the previous question) from this Pasuk?
(c)On what grounds does Rebbi Yochanan disagree with Resh Lakish, both as regards the Tzarah and as regards the other brothers vis-a-vis the Yevamah herself?
(d)So how does he view the Chalitzah of that particular brother with that particular Tzarah?
6)
(a)We learn from the Pasuk " ... Asher Lo Yivneh es Beis Achiv" - that a Chalutzah is forbidden on the brother who performed Chalitzah with her.
(b)Resh Lakish learns from here - that the Torah exempts specifically the brother who performed Chalitzah from Kares, and the Yevamah with whom Chalitzah was performed, commuting it to an Aseh, but as far as the other brothers and the Tzarah is concerned, the Isur Kares remains.
(c)Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Resh Lakish, both as regards the Tzarah and as regards the other brothers vis-a-vis the Yevamah herself - on the grounds that initially, any of the brothers could have performed Chalitzah, with either of the women, so how can only the one who actually performed Yibum be Patur from Kares, and all the rest, Chayav?
(d)He views the Chalitzah of that particular brother with that particular Tzarah - as a Shelichus on behalf of all of the brothers and the other Tzarah.
7)
(a)The Beraisa rules that if one of the brothers performed Chalitzah with the Yevamah, subsequently betrothed her and died, she requires Chalitzah from one of the remaining brothers. Why does this pose a Kashya on Resh Lakish?
(b)When Rebbi Yochanan asked Resh Lakish this Kashya, the latter retorted from the Seifa, which says 'Amad Echad min ha'Achin v'Kideshah, Ein Lah Alav Klum'. Why does this pose a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan? What does 'Ein Lah Alav Klum' mean?
(c)To reconcile the Beraisa like Rebbi Yochanan, Rav Sheshes establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Akiva. How does that answer the Kashya? What does Rebbi Akiva say?
(d)On what basis do we conclude that this answer not so good?
7)
(a)The Tana of the Beraisa rules that if one of the brothers performed Chalitzah with the Yevamah, subsequently betrothed her and died, she requires Chalitzah from one of the remaining brothers, posing a Kashya on Resh Lakish - according to whom she ought to be Patur completely.
(b)When Rebbi Yochanan asked Resh Lakish this Kashya, the latter retorted from the Seifa, which says 'Amad Echad min ha'Achin v'Kideshah, Ein Lah Alav Klum' - which we understand to mean that Kidushin does take effect (so she does not require a Get), because Kidushin is not effective on Chayvei Kerisus. According to Rebbi Yochanan however, this is not a case of Kares, but just a Lav, on which Kidushin is effective.
(c)To reconcile the Beraisa like Rebbi Yochanan, Rav Sheshes establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Akiva - who maintains that Kidushin does not take effect on Chayvei Lavin either. According to the Rabanan, she would indeed require a Get.
(d)We conclude however that this answer is not so good - because then the Tana should have said 'l'Divrei Rebbi Akiva, Ein Lah Alav Klum'.
