לע"נ ר' שמעון בן ר' חיים אליעזר
לרפואת ר' מרדכי בן שרה
ר' יצחק חיים יחיאל בן אסתר
ר' אלכסנדר ישראל בן חיה מרתא
ר' ישעיה מרדכי עזרא בן רחל דבורה
בתוך שח"י
Is the איסור of a woman to marry other men after her husband dies if they were childless [איסור יבמה לשוק] an איסור ערוה or an איסור ביאה סתם?
Nafka minos? [Or "Nafkos mina"]
Sure!
1] Is there is din of יהרג ואל יעבור? If it is an איסור ערוה then יהרג ואל יעבור. Otherwise - not.
2] Do we say require 2 עדים in line with the rule אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים?
Rav Yosef Engel [and Rav Yitzchak Elchonon in the Be'er Yitzchak] points to a Tosfos in Yevamos [36b ד"ה הא לא שהה]. The Gemara says that if the Yevama had a baby who died within 30 days of his birth, we suspect that the baby was not viable [נפל] and thus she must perform חליצה just in case [if the baby was viable of course no chalitza would be required].
Tosfos asks why we don't follow the majority and say that the baby was NOT a נפל, because most babies are not, thus releasing the woman from the obligation to perform chalitza?!
Answers Tosfos:
"ואומר ר"י דחיישינן למיעוט מצוי כזה כמו במים שאין להם סוף לאשתו אסורה וגוסס שאין מעידין עליו להשיא את אשתו אף על גב דשמא התם משום חומר ערוה החמירו"
We are concerned for a common minority like this, just like [one who drowned in] endless water (one cannot see the shore in all directions. We are concerned lest he survived and left the water outside our sight - below, 121a). His wife is forbidden [to remarry]; [We are concerned for a common minority] also regarding Goses (someone mortally sick who will probably die). We may not testify about him that he died, to permit his wife.
But then Tosfos asks: Perhaps there we are stringent due to Ervah!
From this Tosfos we see that according to their opinion, a Yevama does not have a din ervah!
But it is not so simple. Let us see a gemara [Bava Metzia 20a] that will lead us to the opposite conclusion:
ההוא גיטא דאשתכח בי דינא דרב הונא דהוה כתיב ביה בשוירי מתא דעל רכיס נהרא
אמר רב הונא חיישינן לשני שוירי
א"ל רב חסדא לרבה פוק עיין דלאורתא בעי לה רב הונא מינך, נפק דק ואשכח דתנן כל מעשה ב"ד הרי זה יחזיר
א"ל רב עמרם לרבה היכי פשיט מר איסורא מממונא א"ל תרדא שטרי חליצה ומיאונין תנן
There was a certain bill of divorce that was found in the court of Rav Huna, in which it was written that the bill of divorce was written in Sheviri City, which is located on the Rakhis River.
Rav Huna said about this: We are concerned for the possibility that there are two cities named Sheviri, and that this bill of divorce may belong to someone else who lives in the other Sheviri, and therefore it should not be returned.
Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba: Go out and examine this halacha, as in the evening Rav Huna will ask you about it. He went out, examined it, and discovered a relevant source, as we learned in the mishna: With regard to any court enactment, the one who found it must return it to its presumed owner. Since this bill of divorce had certification that it was valid [a הנפק], it belongs to this category and should be returned.
Rav Amram said to Rabba: How can the Master resolve the halacha in the case of a bill of divorce, which is a ritual matter, from the mishna, which discusses monetary matters?
Rabba said to him: Lazy one, we learned in the mishna that this halacha applies in the case of documents of ḥalitza and documents of refusal as well, which are ritual matters.
Asks Tosfos:
וא"ת טפי אנן מחמירין בממונא דהא אין אנו הולכים בממון אחר הרוב
We are more stringent about money, for we do not follow the majority in monetary matters! (Therefore, Rabah properly derived that if we are lenient about money, all the more so we are lenient about Isur! So what was Rav Amram's question "היכי פשיט מר איסורא מממונא"?)
ובאיסורא אזלינן בתר רובא אפי' היכא דאיכא חזקה דאיסורא כנגד הרוב ולא חיישינן שמא במקום נקב קא שחיט
We follow the majority regarding Isur, even when there is Chezkas Isur against the majority, and [we may eat meat, for] we are not concerned lest there was a hole [in the esophagus] in the place he slaughtered. (I.e. there is no way to check if the animal was Tereifah due to a hole there before Shechitah.)
Answers Tosfos:
וי"ל דמ"מ באשת איש החמירו דמים שאין להם סוף לא תנשא לכתחילה אע"פ שרובם מתים
In any case, regarding a married woman [Chachamim] were stringent. Regarding [a married man who drowned in] endless water (i.e. one cannot see the shore in every direction), l'Chatchilah [his wife] may not remarry, even though most people die [in such a case].
OK - Let us now think one step further. How did Rabba answer? He said that we can trust that this get is valid and return it because the mishna says that we return שטרי חליצה [a document confirming that חליצה was performed and the woman may freely remarry]. Following Tosfos' line of thought this can only be a valid response if we assume that יבמה לשוק is an ervah just like a married woman. Otherwise how can a leniency regarding חליצה prove anything about a גט for an אשת איש??
From here Rav Yosef Engel [אתוון דאורייתא כלל ח פרק א] proves that יבמה לשוק is an איסור ערוה!
Soooooo much more to say בל"נ!!!
