(a)What does our Mishnah say about two brothers (Reuven and Shimon) were married to two sisters (Rachel and Leah), when first one of the brothers (Reuven, say) died, and then the other brother's wife (Leah)? Shimon perform Yibum with Rachel?
(b)Having already learned this earlier, in a case where there is another Yavam (and the Yevamah is not completely pushed away from that house), is it not obvious that the same will apply here, where she is?
(c)So why did the Tana not withdraw this Mishnah altogether?
1)
(a)In a case where two brothers (Reuven and Shimon) were married to two sisters (Rachel and Leah), and first one of the brothers (Reuven, say) died, and then the other brother's wife (Leah) - our Mishnah forbids Shimon to perform Yibum with Rachel, because she was forbidden to him for a short time.
(b)Even though we learned this earlier, in a case where there is a third brother (and the Yevamah is not completely pushed away from that house), the Tana mentions it again here - because initially he meant to learn only this Mishnah, and to permit Yibum in the earlier case (on account of the third brother, Levi). He changed his mind however, and decided to forbid them both (because she was after all, initially forbidden to him (Shimon) and because the Chidush was dear to him, he placed it first.
(c)He really ought then to have withdraw this Mishnah, altogether - only having learned it, he left it intact (as was customary among the Tana'im).
2)
(a)If the Yavam performs Yibum with his wife's sister b'Shogeg whilst she is still alive, Rebbi Yosi says in the Beraisa that he is Chayav two Chata'os, one for Eishes Ach and one for Achos Ishah. What does Rebbi Shimon say?
(b)How do we reconcile this with another Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon says that he is only Chayav because of Achos Ishah?
(c)What does Rav Ashi say to explain why, in the latter case (where the brother married his sister-in-law before the current Yavam married her sister), he cannot perform Yibum, in spite of the fact that the Isur of Achos Ishah does not take effect?
2)
(a)If the Yavam performs Yibum with his wife's sister b'Shogeg whilst she is still alive, Rebbi Yosi rules in the Beraisa that he is Chayav two Chata'os, one for Eishes Ach and one for Achos Ishah. According to Rebbi Shimon - he is only Chayav for Eishes Ach.
(b)The other Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon says that he is only Chayav because of Achos Ishah - speaks when he married his wife before his brother married her sister (so the Isur of Achos Ishah came first), whereas our Beraisa speaks when his brother married the sister first, and he married his wife only afterwards (so the Isur of Eishes Ach came first).
(c)Rav Ashi explains that, in the latter case, despite the fact that the Isur of Achos Ishah does not take effect, he cannot perform Yibum - because it (the Isur Achos Ishah) is waiting in the wings, as it were, for that of Eishes Ach to be removed. The moment it is (when Yibum takes place) it will fall into place, and the Yavam will immediately transgress whenever he has relations with her.
3)
(a)We query this from a Beraisa which discusses someone performed a sin which carries with it two Misos. The Tana Kama says that he receives the more stringent of the two. What does Rebbi Yosi say?
(b)What does Rebbi Yosi (elaborating on this statement) say in another Beraisa, in the case of a woman who is his mother-in-law and also married?
3)
(a)We query this from a Beraisa which discusses someone performed a sin which carries with it two Misos. The Tana Kama says that he receives the more stringent of the two. According to Rebbi Yosi - he receives the punishment of whichever Isur took effect first.
(b)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yosi elaborates - if he committed adultery with a woman who first became his mother-in-law and then got married, he says, he receives Sereifah (burning with hot lead, the punishment for adultery with one's mother-in-law); whereas if she was already married when she became his mother-in-law, he receives Chenek (strangulation, the punishment for adultery with a married woman).
32b----------------------------------------32b
4)
(a)To resolve the contradiction in Rebbi Yosi, Rebbi Avahu explains that Rebbi Yosi concedes that 'Isur Chal al Isur' in the case of an Isur Mosif. Which of the two cases in the first Beraisa is the Isur Mosif? Why is that an Isur Mosif?
(b)Chamoso who then got married is certainly a case of Isur Mosif. Why is that?
(c)Why does Rebbi Yosi then rule that he receives the death of Chamoso?
(d)What would be the Din if he transgressed both of them b'Shogeg?
4)
(a)To resolve the contradiction in Rebbi Yosi, Rebbi Avahu explains that he concedes that 'Isur Chal al Isur' in the case of an Isur Mosif - that of Achos Ishah, since she then becomes forbidden to the other brothers as well (whereas before, she was only forbidden to her brother-in-law).
(b)Chamoso who then got married is certainly a case of Isur Mosif - because she then becomes forbidden to the rest of the world, whereas before, she was only forbidden to her son-in-law).
(c)Rebbi Yosi nevertheless rules that he receives Sereifah (the death penalty of Isur Chamoso) - because a person can only die once, and since the Isur of Chamoso fell first, there is nothing to add to that.
(d)Had he transgressed both of them b'Shogeg however - he would certainly have had to bring two Chata'os.
5)
(a)We query this however, from there where his brother married before he married her sister ('Nasa Mes v'Achar Kach Nasa Chai'). Under which category of 'Isur Chal al Isur' would that fall?
(b)What is the difference between Isur Mosif and Isur Kolel?
(c)Which of the two is considered more stringent?
(d)What problem do we now have with Rebbi Avahu's explanation in Rebbi Yosi?
5)
(a)We query this however, from there where his brother married before he married her sister ('Nasa Mes v'Achar-Kach Nasa Chai'). Under which category of 'Isur Chal al Isur' would that fall - falls under the category of Isur Kolel (since Achos Ishah now incorporates all her sisters, too).
(b)'Isur Mosif' is - where more Isurim are added to the existing one, whereas 'Isur Kolel' is - where the Isur incorporates more people.
(c)Isur Mosif is considered more stringent than Isur Kollel.
(d)The problem with Rebbi Avahu's explanation in Rebbi Yosi - now lies in the very case that we are discussing, which is an Isur Kolel, and according to Rebbi Avahu, Rebbi Yosi agrees by Isur Mosif (but not by Isur Kolel [see also Tosfos DH 'Isur']).
6)
(a)So how does Rava (backed by Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan) conclude in Rebbi Yosi?
(b)If Rebbi Yosi does not hold of 'Isur Chal al Isur' at all, then under which circumstances will both Eishes Ach and Achos Ishah be effective? In which regard do they both take effect?
6)
(a)Rava (backed by Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan) therefore conclude that Rebbi Yosi holds - 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' (under any circumstances) ...
(b)... and when the first Beraisa says that he is Chayav because of both Eishes Ach and Achos Ishah, it means that, since he committed a sin which incorporates two, he is considered a Rasha Gamur, and is buried in the grave-yard where they bury those who died at the hand of Beis Din by burning and stoning (the punishments for the most serious offences).
7)
(a)If a Zar served in the Beis Hamikdash on Shabbos, he is punished for both, according to Rebbi Chiya. Why can this not mean that he has to bring two Chata'os?
(b)Then what does Rebbi Chiya mean?
(c)How does he prove his opinion from the words of Rebbi?
(d)What does Bar Kapara say? How does he prove his opinion from the words of Rebbi?
7)
(a)If a Zar served in the Beis Hamikdash on Shabbos, he is punished for both, according to Rebbi Chiya - not two Chata'os, since the punishment for a Zar b'Mezid is not Kares (b'Mezid, in which case he does not bring a Chatas b'Shogeg).
(b)What Rebbi Chiya means is - that he has transgressed two Isurim.
(c)And he proves his opinion from the words of Rebbi - who (he explains) said Shabbos was given to keep in all respects. When it became permitted in the Beis-Hamikdash, it became permitted for Kohanim only. Consequently, a Zar who brings Korbanos, has transgressed both that Isur of Zarus and that of Shabbos.
(d)Bar Kapara says - that he has only transgressed the Isur of Zarus, because, he quotes Rebbi as saying, when Shabbos became permitted, it became permitted for Zarim, too.
8)
(a)They also engage in the same dispute by a Ba'al-Mum who served b'Tum'ah. What sort of Korban are they referring to in both disputes?
(b)Here too, both Rebbi Chiya and Bar Kapara prove their respective opinions from Rebbi. What is Rebbi's argument according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Chiya?
2. ... Bar Kapara?
8)
(a)They also engage in the same dispute by a Ba'al-Mum who served b'Tum'ah. In both this case and the previous one - they are referring to a Korban Tzibur (since a Korban Yachid overrides neither Shabbos nor Tum'ah).
(b)Here too, both Rebbi Chiya and Bar Kapara prove their respective opinions from Rebbi. According to ...
1. ... Rebbi Chiya, Rebbi is saying - that when Tum'ah became permitted in the Mikdash for the needs of the Korbanos, it was only permitted to Kohanim who have no blemish, but not to those who do. Therefore, a Kohen who is a Ba'al-Mum who eats Kodshim b'Tum'ah, has transgressed both Isurim.
2. ... Bar Kapara - Rebbi maintains that when Tum'ah became permitted, it became permitted completely. So a Ba'al-Mum who eats Kodshim b'Tum'ah is only Chayav because of Ba'al-Mum, but not because of Tum'ah.
9)
(a)Their third Machlokes concerns a Zar who ate Melikah. What is wrong with eating Melikah?
(b)Once again, both Rebbi Chiya and Bar Kapara prove their respective opinions from Rebbi. What is Rebbi's argument, according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Chiya?
2. ... Bar Kapara?
9)
(a)Their third Machlokes concerns a Zar who ate Melikah - which would generally be forbidden because it is considered Neveilah.
(b)Once again, both Rebbi Chiya and Bar Kapara prove their respective opinions from Rebbi. According to ...
1. ... Rebbi Chiya, Rebbi holds - that when Neveilah became permitted in the Mikdash, it became permitted only to Kohanim but not to Zarim. Consequently, a Zar who eats Melikah is Chayav for both transgressions.
2. ... Bar Kapara he says - that when Neveilah became permitted, it became completely permitted (even to Zarim). Consequently, he is only Chayav because of Zarus, but not because of Neveilah.
