Yevamot 3b. The Gemara derives from ''on her'' that yibum is permitted only with the wife of one's brother. That is from the two verses, "You shall not take the sister of your wife upon her in her lifetime," and the verse "If one's brother dies without children, the remaining brother shall marry his wife (shall come upon her)  to establish his name in Israel."

The gemara asks perhaps we should use the gezera shava of the double use of the word ''upon her'' to tell us just like yibum is permitted with the brother's wife, so should it be permitted with the other forbidden relations if one's brother who is married with them dies without seed.  The gemara answers that we would think they are permitted anyway even without a verse because a positive command overrides a negative command. {Yibum should override their prohibition.} So why does the Torah add the word ''upon her''. It must be to tell us that only the brother's wife is permitted, not any of the other fifteen types of forbidden relations. The old Tosphot asks on this that now that we know a positive command does not override a negative command that has karet, therefore we already know all the other fifteen type of forbidden relations are forbidden. So we should be forced to use the word "upon her" to tell us  that they are permitted in yibum.

It occurred to me according to the Rashba that the brother's wife is permitted in yibum because the time of her prohibition has a limit. That limit is when the brother dies without children. Then she is permitted because there is no prohibition, not because a positive command overrides a negative command. But the Torah only sets this time limit for the prohibition of the brothers wife, not for the prohibition of any of the other fifteen types of forbidden relations. Therefore the question of Tosphot remains valid. That is that now that we know all the other fifteen types of forbidden relations are prohibited, the only possible use of the word ""upon her" would be to permit them in a place of yibum.

[rav shach brings this idea of the rashba in forbidden relations chapter 2 halacha 1 ]

 i think that for some of these reasons i have mentioned here that, david bronson in uman suggested to me that the words ''upon here''might be a ''what do we find'' [מה מצינו], not a gezera shava

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 יבמות ג' ע''ב. The גמרא derives from ''עליה'' that יבום is permitted only with the wife of one's brother. That is from the two verses "You shall not take the sister of your wife on her in her lifetime," and the verse "If one's brother dies without children, the remaining brother must marry his wife (shall come upon her)  to establish his name in Israel."

The גמרא asks perhaps we should use the גזרה שווה of the double use of the word ''עליה'' to tell us just like יבום is permitted with the brother's wife, so should it be permitted with the other עריות if ones brother who is married with them dies without seed.  The גמרא answers that we would think they are permitted anyway (even without a verse) because a positive command overrides a negative command. {יבום should override their prohibition.} So why does the תורה add the word ''עליה''. It must be to tell us that only the brother's wife is permitted, not any of the other fifteen types of עריות. The תוספות ישנים asks on this that now that we know a positive command does not override a negative command that has כרת, therefore we already know all the other fifteen types of עריות are forbidden. So we should be forced to use the word "עליה" to tell us  that they are permitted in יבום.

It occurred to me according to the רשב''א that the brother's wife is permitted in יבום because the time of her prohibition has a limit. That limit is when the brother dies without children. Then she is permitted because there is no prohibition, not because a positive command overrides a negative command. But the תורה only sets this time limit for the prohibition of the brothers wife, not for the prohibition of any of the other fifteen types of עריות. Therefore the question of תוספות remains valid. That is that now that we know all the other fifteen types of עריות are prohibited, the only possible use of the word ""עליה" would be to permit them in a place of יבום. 

 i think that for some of these reasons חברותא שלי  הציע, that the word ''עליה ''might be a מה מצינו, not a גזירה שווה

יבמות ג' ע''ב. הגמרא לומדת מ''עליה'' שיבום מותר רק עם אשת אחיו. כלומר משני הפסוקים "לא תקח עליה את אחות אשתך בחייה", והפסוק "אם ימות אחיו בלי ילדים, חייב האח הנותר לשאת את אשתו (יבוא עליה) להקים את שמו בישראל. הגמרא שואלת אולי צריך להשתמש בגזרה שווה (השימוש הכפול במילה ''עליה'') כדי לומר לנו בדיוק כמו יבום מותר עם אשת האח, כך יש להתיר עם שאר העריות אם אחיו שנשוי איתם מת בלי זרע. הגמרא עונה שהיינו חושבים שהם מותרים בכל מקרה (גם בלי פסוק) כי ציווי חיובי גובר על ציווי שלילי. {יבום צריך לבטל את האיסור שלהם.} אז למה התורה מוסיפה את המילה 'עליה''. צריך לומר לנו שרק אשת האח מותרת, לא כל אחד מחמש עשרה סוגי העריות האחרים. התוספות ישנים שואלות על זה שעכשיו כשאנחנו יודעים פקודה חיובית לא עוקף פקודה שלילית שיש לה כרת, לכן אנחנו כבר יודעים שכל חמישה עשר סוגי העריות האחרים אסורים. אז זה צריך להכריח אותנו להשתמש במילה "עליה" כדי לומר לנו שהם מותרים ביבום. עלה בדעתי שלדעת הרשב''א שאשת האח מותרת ביבום משום שלזמן איסורה יש גבול. הגבול הזה הוא כשהאח מת בלי ילדים. ואז היא מותרת כי אין איסור, לא כי ציווי חיובי גובר על ציווי שלילי. אבל התורה קובעת רק מגבלת זמן זו לאיסור אשת האחים, ולא לאיסור של אף אחד מחמשה עשר סוגי העריות האחרים. לכן שאלת התוספות נשארת בתוקף. כלומר שכעת, כשידוע לנו שכל שאר חמשה עשר סוגי העריות אסורים, השימוש היחיד האפשרי במילה "עליה" יהיה להתיר אותם במקום יבום

אני חושב שמכמה מהסיבות האלה חברותא שלי הציע, שהמילה "עליה" עשויה להיות מה מצינו, לא גזירה שווה.

Friesian School --All 20th Century Philosophy is a futile attempt to escape from under the shadow of Kant and Hegel

 I have been thinking about philosophy and over time I have seen the wisdom of the Friesian School with some reservation. The reasons for my reservations  are that it seems incomplete. It builds on Kant but Fries saw that the categories could not be derived from Aristotelian Logic but rather needed an internal source -not based on   what is "out there".Thus came the idea of immediate non intuitive knowledge. But the revival of this school of thought  did not fare well when relativity came along and knocked a few black holes in Newtonian Space. So Bernays [a disciple of Leonard Nelson] the founder of the second Friesian School  saw that something needed to be corrected. Then came Dr Kelley Ross with his web site advocating for the Friesian approach. There the most important part of that site is the PhD Thesis. He lays out there a modification and development of the Friesian approach.

Philosophy is not absurd even though it tends to lead very smart people into very odd conclusions. It is best to take a limited idea of how far reason can go. Brouwer (the discoverer of the fixed point theorem) after he proved this very important theorem discovered "Philosophy" and decided that "Philosophy" would frown on his proof. [He had been persuaded that anything that can not be measured empirically can not have meaning.] It is amazing what nonsense, smart people can be convinced of.   

But the most recent and powerful voice for intuitive non immediate knowledge spends time knocking Hegel from a political point of view.  But later Hegel made a lot of  sense in his Encyclopedia.

All 20th Century Philosophy is a futile attempt to escape from under the shadow of Kant and Hegel  

 za2 midi  za2nwc

 za4 nwc This nwc file is in case anyone wants to see the notes with the instruments. But you need a nwc format to see them. The next file--the midi is to hear, but it also can be used to see the notes. [I did not post any music for  along time because of a tragedy that occurred.]

za4 midi  

za5 midi   za5 nwc

za3 nwc  za3 midi

 za20 nwc   za20 midi

 za19 midi        

 za19 nwc