ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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
(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
(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.