(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Yevamos 32

YEVAMOS 32 (23 Teves) - l'Iluy Nishmas Nachum ben Shlomo Dovid Mosenkis, by his son, Sid Mosenkis of Queens, NY.



(a) The Mishnah says that if two brothers who married two sisters, and first one of the brothers, and then the other brother's wife died - the remaining brother may not perform Yibum with his Yevamah, because she was forbidden to him for a short time.

(b) Even though we learned this earlier, in a case where there is another Yavam (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. He changed his mind however, and decided to forbid them both (because she was after all, forbidden to *him*). So, because the Chidush was dear to him, he placed it first. He really ought to have cancelled this Mishnah, but having learned it, he left it intact.

(a) If the Yavam performs Yibum with his wife's sister be'Shogeg whilst she is still alive, Rebbi Yossi says in the Beraisa that he is Chayav two Chata'os, one for Eishes Ach and one for Achos Ishah - Rebbi Shimon says that 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) There where the brother married his sister-in-law before the current Yavam married her sister, in spite of the fact that the Isur of Achos Ishah does not take effect, he is forbidden to perform Yibum - because Achos Ishah does not take effect only on account of the Isur of Eishes Ach (so, since removing the Isur of Eishes Ach will not permit the Yevamah anyway, it remains intact).

(a) The Tana Kama says that if someone performed a sin which carries with it two Miysos, he receives the more stringent of the two. Rebbi Yossi says that he receives whichever Isur took effect first.

(b) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yossi elaborates: - if he commited adultery with a woman who first became his mother-in-law and then got married, 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).




(a) To resolve the contradiction in Rebbi Yossi, Rebbi Avahu explains that Rebbi Yossi 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 *him*).

(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 *him*).

(c) Rebbi Yossi nevertheless rules that he receives the death 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 be'Shogeg however - he would certainly have had to bring two Chata'os.

(a) 'Nasa Meis ve'Achar-Kach Nasa Chai' ('Eishes Ach ve'Na'asis Achos Ishah' - falls under the category of Isur Kolel (since Achos Ishah now forbids him on all her sisters, too).

(b) The problem that we have with Rebbi Avahu's explanation in Rebbi Yossi - lies in the very case that we are discussing, which is an Isur Kolel, and not an Isur Mosif, so how can he say that Rebbi Yossi agrees by an Isur Mosif (and not by an Isur Kolel - see also Tosfos DH 'Isur').

(a) Clearly, the Gemara currently holds that Isur Mosif is stronger than Isur Kollel (at least, in the opinion of Rebbi Yossi).

(b) Rava (backed by Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan) explains that, in the opinion of Rebbi Yossi, 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' (under any circumstances) - and when the first Beraisa says that he is Chayav because of both Eishes Ach and Achos Ishah, it means that, since he commited a sin which incorporates two, he is considered a Rasha Gamur, and is buried in the grave-yard where they bury those who died ay the hand of Beis-Din by burning and stoning (the punishments for the most serious offences).

(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 be'Meizid is not Kares (be'Meizid, and therefore not Chatas be'Shogeg).

(b) What Rebbi Chiya means is - that he has transgresssed two Isurim.

(c) 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 *one* Isur (that of Zarus), because, he quotes Rebbi as saying, when Shabbos became permitted, it became permitted for Zarim, too.

(a) They also engage in the same dispute by a Ba'al-Mum who served be'Tum'ah. in both this case and that of 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. Rebbi's argument according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Chiya is - that when Tum'ah became permitted in the Mikdash for the needs of the Korbanos, it was only permitted to Kohanim who had *no* blemish, but not to those who *did*. Therefore, a Kohen who is a Ba'al-Mum who eats Kodshim be'Tum'ah, has transgressed both Isurim.
2. ... Bar Kapara - maintains that when Tum'ah became permitted, it became permitted completely. So a Ba'al-Mum who who eats KOdshim be'Tum'ah is only Chayav because of Ba'al-Mum, but not because of Tum'ah.
(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. Rebbi's argument according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Chiya is - 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 is - that when Neveilah became permitted, it became completely permitted (even to Zarim). Consequently, he is only Chayav because of Zarus, but because of Neveilah.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,