ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 7
YEVAMOS 6, 7, 8, 9 (Chanukah) - dedicated by Uri Wolfson and Naftali Wilk in
honor of Rav Mordechai Rabin of Har Nof, a true beacon of Torah and Chesed.
(a) Assuming that Kevuras Meis Mitzvah does not override Shabbos, we refute
the 'Kal va'Chomer' that Retzichah ought to, because it overrides Avodah -
by citing Kevuras Meis Mitzvah, which overrides Avodah, but not Shabbos.
(b) We counter this (and re-instate the 'Kal va'Chomer') - by suggesting
that Kevuras Meis-Mitzvah ought to override Shabbos, since it overrides
Avodah which overrides Shabbos?
(a) We initially thought that when the Beraisa's originally contended that
Retzichah should override Shabbos, that is based on the principle 'Asei
Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'. The Tana reconsiders this however - on the grounds that
we only say that by an ordinary La'av, but not by a La'av which carries with
it Kareis (such as "Mechalelehah Mos Yumas").
(b) We counter that an Asei anyway overrides a La'av, in spite of the fact
that the La'av is more stringent than it (so what difference does it make if
the La'av carries with it Kareis as well?). What makes a La'av more
stringent than an Asei - is the fact that it is punishable by Malkos, which
an Asei is not.
(a) Although the Torah includes all Kodshim in the Kareis of "Kol Ish Asher
Yikrav ... el ha'Kodoshim Asher Yakdishu ... ", it nevertheless finds it
necessary to add the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal B'sar Zevach
ha'Shelamim ve'Tum'aso Alav ... ve'Nichresah" - to teach us that a Tamei
person is only Chayav Kareis for eating Kodshei *Mizbei'ach* (like
Shelamim), but not Kodshei Bedek *ha'Bayis*.
(b) The principle that governs this D'rashah is - the eighth of Rebbi
Yishmael's thirteen principles: 'Any P'rat (detail of a K'lal) that was
included in the K'lal (the general category), and was then taken out to
teach a new Chidush, that Chidush is not confined to the P'rat, but reflects
on the entire K'lal'.
(c) We are still searching for a source to include Achos Ishah in the Heter
of Yibum (for the need to preclude her from "Alehah"). We attempt to use
this principle as the source - by contending that Achos Achiv was included
in the Arayos, and was now taken out to teach us the Heter of Yibum, that
Heter should extend to all the Arayos.
(d) We reject that contention however - on the grounds that in the principle
of Rebbi Yishmael, both the K'lal and the P'rat are teaching us a Chumra (a
Chiyuv Kareis for eating them when one is Tamei); whereas in our case, we
are trying to use Achos Achiv to superimpose a Kula on the Arayos.
(a) The Torah writes in Metzora "ve'Shachat es ha'Keves bi'M'kom Asher
Yishchat es ha'Chatas ve'es ha'Olah bi'Mekom ha'Kodesh, Ki ka'Chatas
ha'Asham". We do not need "Ki ka'Chatas ha'Asham" to designate ...
1. ... the location of the Shechitah of the Asham - because we know that
already from "bi'Mekom Asher Yishchat es ha'Chatas" mentioned earlier.
(b) The Hekesh comes to teach us - that even though some of the blood of
this particular Asham had the distinction of being placed on the owner's
right thumb and right big toe, it nevertheless required sprinkling like the
2. ... the way the blood was to be sprinkled or how it was to be eaten -
because we know that from "Zos Toras ha'Asham" in Tzav (which teaches us
that all the Ashamos have the same Din).
(c) We can deduce from here - that if not for the Hekesh, the blood of the
Asham Metzora would not require sprinkling, which in turn, teaches us that
something that was originally part of a K'lal, and was then taken out to
teach something new, cannot be returned to the K'lal unless the Torah
specifically reinstates it.
(d) In that case, we ought to apply the same principle to Eishes Achiv, and
say - that Eishes Achiv has been given the Mitzvah of Yibum (the Heter to
'marry' an Ervah - a Chidush), but that that Heter does not extend to the
rest of the K'lal. So why do we need "Alehah" (to preclude Achos Ishto from
(a) We conclude that Achos Ishto ought to be included in the Mitzvah of
Yibum - from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Eishes Achiv (seeing as both are Arayos).
(b) In spite of the fact that, whereas Eishes Achiv constitutes only *one*
Isur, Achos Ishto constitutes *two* - we would say 'Ho'il ve'Ishteri,
(a) No Tamei person may enter the Azarah. Some Tum'os however, are
permitted in the Har ha'Bayis.
1. A Tamei Meis or Sheretz - is *permitted* to enter the Har ha'Bayis;
(b) The Sha'ar Nikanor was the gate leading to the Ezras Nashim - Chazal
ascribed to it the Kedushah of the Har ha'Bayis.
2. a Ba'al Keri or Zav - is *not*;
3. a T'vul Yom of a Ba'al Keri - is also *not*.
(c) On Erev Pesach, they permitted a Metzora on his eighth day to enter the
Sha'ar Nikanor (for the placing of the blood of his Asham on his big, right
thumb etc.), even if he saw Keri on that day, provided he had also Toveled -
because an Asei which carries with it Kareis (i.e. the bringing of the
Pesach) overrides an Asei which does not (i.e. a T'vul Yom entering the Har
(d) Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "va'Ya'amod Yehoshafat bi'K'hal
Yehudah Lifnei *ha'Chatzer ha'Chadashah*" - that min ha'Torah, a T'vul Yom
is permitted to enter the Har ha'Bayis, and it was Yehoshafat who had just
issued a new Takanah forbidding him to do so.
(a) Ula has a problem with a Metzora who is also a Ba'al Keri, placing his
hands inside the Azarah - because he holds that even if part of a person
enters the Azarah, it is as if he had entered completely. That being so,
granted that the Torah instructs the Metzora to place his hands inside the
Azarah (as part of his purification process), but how can we permit a
T'vul-Yom of a Ba'al Keri to do likewise, seeing as he is Chayav Kareis no
less than the person who does not bring his Korban Pesach?
(b) He solves the problem - by applying the principle 'Ho'il ve'Ishteri,
(c) In that case, we conclude, all the Arayos ought to be included in the
Mitzvah of Yibum, which explains why "Alehah" is required to forbid them.