I wanted to introduce a famous subject that comes up in the beginning of Yevamot. This will help to answer a question I asked in the beginning of Yevamot that I wrote in my little booklet חידושי הש''ס
It is the question of אשת אחיו מאמו the wife of a brother from the mother, not from the father. The Rambam says simply that אשת אחיו the wife of a brother is required to bring a sin offering. [I mean if one slept with her.] he does not make any distinction between the wife of a brother from the father or mother. That means both are in כרת [being cut off from one's people if done on purpose and required a sin offering if done by accident.] This is clearly not like the Torah Kohanim that Tosphot brings in the beginning of Yevamot. That statement from the book reads thus, The the verse about not to marry one's brother's wife says "נדה היא"[she is a woman that has seen blood.] Torah Kohanim asks why compare her to a נדה? Because just like a נדה has a time of permission so does she--that is if the brother dies without children. So the verse can not be talking about a brother from the mother.
So the Rambam obviously rejects this braita/teaching.
Rav Shach suggests the reason is that it is going like an opinion in the Gemara that was rejected. [Yevamot 41]
הותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה אסורה (like Shmuel and Rav Assi) The reason for this the Rashba says is that opinion holds the יבמה is an איסור כרת but the עשה of יבום pushes it off. But the Halacha in the Gemara itself is הותרה ונאסרה והותרה מותרת (Rav and R. Chanina) and that opinion holds the איסור of אשת אח has a time limit and after she falls to Yibum there no longer is any כרת involved. Thus the same goes for the wife of the brother from the mother that also has a time limit. But the actual prohibition never falls off because the mitzvah of yibum never arrives. But since it could arrive in theory so the prohibition has a time limit. Therefore the Braita of Torat Kohanim that takes the wife of the brother from the mother out of כרת because she has no permission does not apply. Thus we see that braita is going like a rejected opinion in the Gemara.
Thus my question in the beginning of yevamot also has an answer.
That is that original braita there that would be holding עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת would also be going like this rejected opinion in the Gemara of Shmuel and Rav Assi
It is the question of אשת אחיו מאמו the wife of a brother from the mother, not from the father. The Rambam says simply that אשת אחיו the wife of a brother is required to bring a sin offering. [I mean if one slept with her.] he does not make any distinction between the wife of a brother from the father or mother. That means both are in כרת [being cut off from one's people if done on purpose and required a sin offering if done by accident.] This is clearly not like the Torah Kohanim that Tosphot brings in the beginning of Yevamot. That statement from the book reads thus, The the verse about not to marry one's brother's wife says "נדה היא"[she is a woman that has seen blood.] Torah Kohanim asks why compare her to a נדה? Because just like a נדה has a time of permission so does she--that is if the brother dies without children. So the verse can not be talking about a brother from the mother.
So the Rambam obviously rejects this braita/teaching.
Rav Shach suggests the reason is that it is going like an opinion in the Gemara that was rejected. [Yevamot 41]
הותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה אסורה (like Shmuel and Rav Assi) The reason for this the Rashba says is that opinion holds the יבמה is an איסור כרת but the עשה of יבום pushes it off. But the Halacha in the Gemara itself is הותרה ונאסרה והותרה מותרת (Rav and R. Chanina) and that opinion holds the איסור of אשת אח has a time limit and after she falls to Yibum there no longer is any כרת involved. Thus the same goes for the wife of the brother from the mother that also has a time limit. But the actual prohibition never falls off because the mitzvah of yibum never arrives. But since it could arrive in theory so the prohibition has a time limit. Therefore the Braita of Torat Kohanim that takes the wife of the brother from the mother out of כרת because she has no permission does not apply. Thus we see that braita is going like a rejected opinion in the Gemara.
Thus my question in the beginning of yevamot also has an answer.
That is that original braita there that would be holding עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת would also be going like this rejected opinion in the Gemara of Shmuel and Rav Assi
{I wanted to introduce a subject that comes up in the beginning of יבמות. This will help to answer a question I asked in the beginning of יבמות.[Mainly what I am doing here is simply saying that braita at the beginning of yevamot is not the halacha and in fact it hold עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת as Tosphot and the Old Tosphot both point out. So in stead of answering the question I simply say that braita is rejected. It is the question of אשת אחיו מאמו. The רמב''ם says simply that אשת אחיו the wife of a brother is required to bring a sin offering. [I mean if one slept with her.] he does not make any distinction between the wife of a brother from the father or mother. That means both are in כרת, and required a sin offering if done by accident. This is clearly not like the law in תורת כהנים that תוספות brings in the beginning of יבמות. That statement from the book reads thus, The the verse about not to marry one's brother's wife says "נדה היא". The תורת כהנים asks why compare her to a נדה? Because just like a נדה has a time of permission, so does she, that is if the brother dies without children. So the verse can not be talking about a brother from the mother.So the רמב''ם obviously rejects this teaching. רב שך suggests the reason is that it is going like an opinion in the גמרא that was rejected, יבמות מ''א. That is הותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה אסורה like שמואל and רב אסי. The reason for this the רשב''א says is that opinion holds the יבמה is an איסור כרת but the עשה of יבום pushes it off. But the הלכה in the גמרא itself is הותרה ונאסרה והותרה מותרת like רב and ר' חנינא and that opinion holds the איסור of אשת אח has a time limit and after she falls to יבום there no longer is any כרת involved. Thus the same goes for the wife of the brother from the mother that also has a time limit. But the actual prohibition never falls off because the מצוה of יבום never arrives. But since it could arrive in theory, so the prohibition has a time limit. Therefore, the law of תורת כהנים that takes the wife of the brother from the mother out of כרת because she has no היתר does not apply. Thus we see that law of תורת כהנים is going like a rejected opinion in the גמרא.
Thus my question in the beginning of יבמות also has an answer. That is that original teaching there that would be holding עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת would also be going like this rejected opinion in the גמרא of שמואל and רב אסי.}
______________________________________________________
The question of sexual relations with אשת אחיו מאמו the wife of a brother from the mother, not from the father. The רמב''ם says simply that if one slept with אשת אחיו the wife of a brother is required to bring a sin offering. He does not make any distinction between the wife of a brother from the father or mother. That means both are in כרת This is clearly not like the תורת כהנים that תוספות brings in the beginning of יבמות. That statement is thus: The the verse about not to marry one's brother's wife says "נדה היא". תורת כהנים asks why compare her to a נדה? Answer: Just like a נדה has a time of permission, so does אשת אחיו. That MEANS if the brother dies without children. So the verse can not be talking about a brother from the mother. TO THIS way of thinking, a wife of a brother from a mother is not included in the prohibition of sex with the wife of a brother.
The רמב''ם obviously rejects this ברייתא.
רב שך suggests the reason is that it is going like an opinion in the גמרא יבמות מ''א that was rejected. This is the opinion of שמואל ורב אסי
הותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה אסורה. The reason for this rejection is the רשב''א says is that opinion holds the יבמה is an איסור כרת, but the עשה of יבום pushes it off. But the הלכה is כרב ור' חנינא שהותרה ונאסרה והותרה מותרת and that opinion holds the איסור of אשת אח has a time limit and after she falls to יבום there no longer is any כרת involved. Thus the same goes for the wife of the brother from the mother that also has a time limit. But the actual prohibition never falls off because the מצווה of יבום never arrives. But since it could arrive in theory, so the prohibition has a time limit. Therefore the ברייתא of תורת כהנים that takes the wife of the brother from the mother out of כרת because she has no permission does not apply. Thus we see that ברייתא is going like a rejected opinion in the גמרא.
Thus my question in the beginning of יבמות also has an answer.
That is that original ברייתא there that would be holding עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת would also be going like this rejected opinion in the גמרא of שמואל and רב אסי
רב שך suggests the reason is that it is going like an opinion in the גמרא יבמות מ''א that was rejected. This is the opinion of שמואל ורב אסי
הותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה אסורה. The reason for this rejection is the רשב''א says is that opinion holds the יבמה is an איסור כרת, but the עשה of יבום pushes it off. But the הלכה is כרב ור' חנינא שהותרה ונאסרה והותרה מותרת and that opinion holds the איסור of אשת אח has a time limit and after she falls to יבום there no longer is any כרת involved. Thus the same goes for the wife of the brother from the mother that also has a time limit. But the actual prohibition never falls off because the מצווה of יבום never arrives. But since it could arrive in theory, so the prohibition has a time limit. Therefore the ברייתא of תורת כהנים that takes the wife of the brother from the mother out of כרת because she has no permission does not apply. Thus we see that ברייתא is going like a rejected opinion in the גמרא.
Thus my question in the beginning of יבמות also has an answer.
That is that original ברייתא there that would be holding עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת would also be going like this rejected opinion in the גמרא of שמואל and רב אסי
------------------------------------------------------------------------
{I wanted to introduce a subject that comes up in the beginning of יבמות. This will help to answer a question I asked in the beginning of יבמות.[Mainly what I am doing here is simply saying that ברייתא at the beginning of יבמות is not the halacha, and it holds עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת as תוספות and the תוספות ישנים both point out. So instead of answering the question I simply say that ברייתא is rejected. It is the question of אשת אחיו מאמו. The רמב''ם says that אשת אחיו the wife of a brother is required to bring a sin offering. He does not make any distinction between the wife of a brother from the father or mother. That means both are in כרת, and required a sin offering if done by accident. This is clearly not like the law in תורת כהנים that תוספות brings in the beginning of יבמות. That statement from the book reads thus, The the verse about not to marry one's brother's wife says "נדה היא". The תורת כהנים asks why compare her to a נדה? Because just like a נדה has a time of permission, so does she, that is if the brother dies without children. So the verse can not be talking about a brother from the mother. So the רמב''ם obviously rejects this teaching. רב שך suggests the reason is that it is going like an opinion in the גמרא that was rejected, יבמות מ''א. That is הותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה אסורה like שמואל and רב אסי. The reason for this the רשב''א says is that opinion holds the יבמה is an איסור כרת but the עשה of יבום pushes it off. But the הלכה in the גמרא itself is הותרה ונאסרה והותרה מותרת like רב and ר' חנינא and that opinion holds the איסור of אשת אח has a time limit and after she falls to יבום there no longer is any כרת involved. Thus the same goes for the wife of the brother from the mother that also has a time limit. But the actual prohibition never falls off because the מצוה of יבום never arrives. But since it could arrive in theory, so the prohibition has a time limit. Therefore, the law of תורת כהנים that takes the wife of the brother from the mother out of כרת because she has no היתר does not apply. Thus we see that law of תורת כהנים is going like a rejected opinion in the גמרא.
Thus my question in the beginning of יבמות also has an answer. That is that original teaching there that would be holding עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת would also be going like this rejected opinion in the גמרא of שמואל and רב אסי.}
