ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 15
(a) If we do with the Tzaras ha'Bas like ...
1. ... Beis Hillel - then the child will be Pagum (Pasul li'Kehunah).
(b) We know that, in the former case, although the child is Kasher le'Kahal,
he is Pasul li'Kehunah - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a P'sul Kehunah (e.g.
an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol), where the La'av is *not* applicable to
everyone (so how much more a Yevamah le'Shuk, who *is*).
2. ... Beis Shamai - then the child will be a Mamzer.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri tried to get round this problem by instituting
that a Tzaras Ervah must make Chalitzah - though this Takanah was never
passed by Beis-Din.
(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel objected to Raban Yochanan ben Nuri's Takanah -
on the grounds that, if one were to initiate such a Takanah, forbidding the
Tzaros Ervah to perform Yibum (according to Beis Shamai) it would be
tantamount to declaring all those Tzaros who performed Yibum until now,
(a) We try to prove from Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's objection - that Beis
Shamai practiced what they taught.
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak refutes the proof however - by establishing
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's objection, not with regard to the children of the
Tzarah, but with regard to the Tzaros who had already married le'Shuk.
(c) The problem of obligating the Tzaros of Beis Hillel to make Chalitzah
there and then - was that, by doing so, their husbands would despise them
(d) It matters very much for the Tzaros to become despicable in the eyes of
their husbands - because of the Pasuk in Mishlei "Derachehah Darchei No'am"
(The ways of the Torah are pleasant, and should not have nasty
(a) Rebbi Tarfon said in a Beraisa that he had a strong desire to marry a
Tzaras ha'Bas. This is indeed the opinion of Beis Shamai - but then Rebbi
Tarfon was a Talmid of Beis Shamai.
(b) We repudiate the proof from here that Beis Shamai practiced what they
taught - by interpreting 've'Esa'enah' to mean 've'Asi'enah' ('and I will
marry her to someone else').
(c) Rebbi Tarfon said that he had a desire to do that, in spite of the fact
that everyone (even Beis Shamai) did so anyway (since we currently hold 'Lo
Asu') - in order to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who
tried to institute Chalitzah first.
(a) Raban Gamliel's daughter was married to Aba his brother. When Aba died,
Raban Gamliel performed Yibum with her Tzarah. We cannot possibly bring a
proof from here that Beis Shamai practiced what they taught - because Raban
Gamliel was a grandson of Hillel (and would hardly have been from Beis
(b) The reason that Raban Gamliel performed Yibum with his daughter's
Tzarah - is because his daughter was an Aylonis.
(c) But Acheirim in the Seifa says that she was an Aylonis, implying that
the Tana Kama does not think so. Initially, we establish the Machlokes by
'Hikir Bah ve'Lo Hikir Bah' - meaning that according to both Tana'im she was
actually an Aylonis; however, according to the Tana Kama, the Kidushin of
Aba to Raban Gamliel's daughter was nullified because he did not know that
she was an Aylonis (making it a Mekach Ta'us - a false sale); whereas,
according to Acheirim, it speaks when he knew that she was an Aylonis, in
which case, the Kidushin was not nullified. Nevertheless, her Tzarah was
permitted (like the opinion of Rav Asi on 12a.).
(d) The Gemara offers another two interpretations to the Machlokes. By ...
1. ... 'Kanas ve'li'b'Sof Gireish Ika Beinayhu', Acheirim permitted the
Tzarah to Raban Gamliel only because she was an Aylanis - the Tana Kama,
because at the time that she fell to Yibum, she was no longer a Tzaras
2. ... 'Yesh T'nai be'Bi'ah Ika Beinayhu', Acheirim permitted the Tzarah to
Raban Gamliel only because she was an Aylanis - the Tana Kama, because the
condition that she would have no blemishes or Nedarim was not fulfilled, so
the Kidushin is nullified. Acheirim disagrees with that, because, in his
opinion - when a man marries his betrothed and makes Bi'ah, he foregoes all
former conditions (unless of course, he specifically renews them), in order
not to render his Bi'ah an immoral one.
(a) The Beraisa relates how Rebbi Akiva picked an Esrog on the first of
Sh'vat and separated two Ma'asros - Ma'aser Sheini (of the *second* year)
and Ma'aser Ani (of the *third*).
(b) The significance of the two Ma'asros is - that the former follows the
opinion of Beis Hillel (whose Rosh ha'Shanah only takes place on the
fifteenth of Sh'vat), whereas the latter follows that of Beis Shamai, in
whose opinion, the New Year had already passed.
(c) We reject the proof from here that Beis Shamai *practiced* what they
taught - on the grounds that Rebbi Akiva did not contend with Beis Shamai at
all. He took into account the possibility that Rosh Hashanah takes place on
Rosh Chodesh Sh'vat because he forgot who said what (and therefore contended
with the possibility that it was according to Beis Hillel that Rosh Hashanah
was on Rosh Chodesh).
(a) When his daughter-in-law gave birth to a boy on Sukos - Shamai went and
broke a hole in the ceiling where she was lying and covered it with S'chach
(because he was of the opinion that a boy is Chayav Sukah even if he still
needs his mother).
(b) There is no proof from here however, that Beis Shamai always practiced
what they taught - because people would think that Shamai made the hole in
order to increase the air supply, and not for the Mitzvah (in which case,
everybody agrees that Beis Shamai would be permitted to do so).
(a) To connect a Mikvah containing twenty Sa'ah to a complete Mikvah - a
hole needs to be 'ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod', which effectively means that two
fingers are able to revolve in it.
(b) Beis Shamai broke a large hole in Shokes Yeihu (a large hollow stone at
the foot of a stream of water that flowed down the mountainside, that
contained less than forty Sa'ah but adjoined a full-size Mikveh), even
though there was already a hole there the size of a Shefoferes ha'Nod.
(c) There is no proof from here either that Beis Shamai always practiced
what they taught - because here too, people would say that they enlarged the
hole in order to increase the water supply, and not in order to render the
(a) When Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok brought Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorni olives
in a year of drought, he claimed that he did not eat olives - because he saw
that they were wet, and he was afraid that they had become Muchshar
le'Kabeil Tum'ah via the juice in the barrel.
Considering that Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorni was a disciple of Shamai - we see
clearly that Beis Shamai did indeed practice their opinion.
(b) To put his mind at ease - Rebbi Tzadok instructed his son to tell Rebbi
Yochanan ha'Chorni that a hole had been drilled in the barrel for the juice
to flow out, but that the dregs had stopped it up.
(c) Beis Shamai do not require a hole to be drilled in a barrel which
contains olives that have been slightly pressed. Beis Hillel disagree on the
grounds that they consider the juice that seeps from the olives to be a
liquid (like the oil that is processed from them - unlike other
fruit-juices, which everybody agrees are not considered liquids that are
(d) Beis Hillel concedes that the juice is not Machshir, in spite of the
fact that it cannot escape from the barrel - if a hole was deliberately
drilled in the barrel, indicating that one does not want the juice (and it
makes no difference if it was later stopped-up by the dregs).
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua was reluctant to issue a ruling concerning Tzaras
ha'Bas - because he was afraid to 'place his head between two big mountains,
in case he got his head crushed' (Beis Shamai might kill him for pronouncing
(b) He did however, give testimonial regarding two families in
Yerushalayim - who were the descendants of Tzaros Ervah who had married
le'Shuk (like Beis Hillel), and from whom Kohanim Gedolim were later
(c) We prove from here that Beis Shamai did indeed practice their opinion -
because, if they did not, why would Rebbi Yehoshua have been afraid.
(d) In spite of the fact that Rebbi Yehoshua holds 'Ein Mamzer Ela
mei'Chayvei Misos Beis-Din, and that, since Yevamah la'Shuk is no more than
a Chayvei La'avin, the children will not be Mamzeirim anyway, according to
Beis Shamai, he was nevertheless afraid to rule like Beis Hillel - because
even though the children would *not* be Mamzeirim, they *would* be Pasul
li'Kehunah (from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, as we saw
(a) They initially asked Rebbi Yehoshua about Tzaros ha'Bas. He replied
about their children - because they actually asked him *two* She'eilos: 1.
What is the Din by the Tzaros? and 2. If he were to rule like Beis Hillel,
then how about their children according to Beis Shamai.
(b) Despite the fact that the Halachah is not like Beis Shamai anyway, they
asked him about the B'nei Tzaros according to Beis Shamai, because the
answer will reflect on the She'eilah regarding the child of a Machzir
Gerushaso (even according to Beis Hillel), which, like the B'nei Tzaros
le'Shuk (according to Bei Shamai), is a case of Chayvei La'avin.
(c) The ruling of a child of a Machzir Gerushaso may be different than that
of an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol in this regard - because, unlike an Almanah
le'Kohen Gadol, the Gerushah herself does not become Pesulah.
(d) Rebbi Yehoshua does not issue any ruling concerning the Tzaros Ervah,
but as far as the B'nei Tzaros is concerned, he rules that, according to
Beis Shamai, they are fit to be Kohanim Gedolim.