the notes are in nwc but you can open midi and convert the sound to notes--but without the details.
if you convert this to mp3, be aware that the instruments have to be changed. what works for midi does not work for mp3, --example strings at the end of the piece can not work for mp3. they would have to be changed to cello in the bass and many other adjustments. [i would be happy to do this myself but have no access to any mp3 program]
The question on the Rambam from Yevamot 30a is more severe than is generally known. The problem is the mishna brings the case when a the erva falls to yibum first. The Mishna say if the brother did maamar on her, then her zara [the not related wife] requires halitza. Then Rav Nahman says that according to the opinion there is zika, even just zika will cause the non related wife to require halitza. We hold that there is zika, and so it should be clear that in this case the non related wife is forbidden even without maamar. Yet the Rambam decided the law opposite from what the gemara states. He writes the non related woman requires halitza if mamar was done on the sister.
Then the next mishna brings the case when the non related wife falls to yibum first, and then she and the sister of the wife fall to yibum together. In that case the Rambam writes even if the non related woman fell to yibum only by means of zika, she requires halitza. However the mishna there states only if maamar was done on her, then she requires halitza. Again the Rambam is deciding the law not like the mishna which says only maamar causes the non related wife to be forbidden
yevamot page 30 side A and side B. There is a difference in law between to different kinds of cases. One case is where a unrelated woman is has fallen to be required in yibum by means of zika. The other case is when the sister of the wife of the brother has fallen to yibum by zika. The second case is lite [to Rashi and Rambam,] and forbidden only if maamar [a statement of kidushin is made on her.--But if all that occurred is zika, then the unrelated woman is permitted]. But the first case is more severe. When it is the unrelated woman that has fallen to yibum by zika then she is certainly forbidden to Rashi and Rambam. And Rav Isar Meltzer brings down the commentary on the Mishna of Rambam who suggests that she might be forbidden even from the Torah.[But to the Rashba she is forbidden only if maamar was done on her--i.e., the second brother asked her to marry him.]
I would like here to explain the two cases in more detail. Case one. Three brothers. Two are married to two sisters, and one to an unrelated woman. The last one died, and so the unrelated woman is now required to have yibum by means of zika. [Zika is like a magnetic force that pulls on her to either of the remaining brothers]. Then the second brother died. She is totally forbidden to the remaining brother --maybe even from the Torah. [To Rashi Rambam, not Rashba]. The other case. Three brothers. Two of them are married to two sisters, and one to an unrelated woman. One of the brothers married to a sister died. Now that sister has fallen to yibum to the brother married to the unrelated woman. If that brother did maamar on her [i.e., asked her to marry him] and then died, the third brother cannot marry her. But if the second brother did nothing and said nothing, and then died, then the third brother can marry the unrelated woman.
To Rav Shach the difference is because Zika is not marriage even from the words of the sofrim. And the only reason the zara of the erva by means of zika is forbidden is a special gezera on her because she can be mixed up with an zarat Erva. The question that comes to mind here is: Why assume there is any gezera at all? If the Gemara nor geonim bring such a gezera, why assume it exists [as in fact the Rashba says]? I mean to say the Rashba holds the zara of the erva by zika is permitted. Only if Maamar was done is she permitted.]
the way rav isar meltzer answer this question on the rambam is that the rambam holds that our subject on pg 30 is not according to rava on pg 96 that a yavam does yibum when the wife falls to him from one brother, not two. so our case of the non related wife should clearly forbidden since she has fallen from two brothers. however rav shach points out that that applies only when maamar was done on by both brothers, not just zika as he shows from pg 43b
The way Rav Shach understands this Rambam is that he takes the question on why when the erva falls to yibum first and then she forbids her zara to be forbidden only by maamar is the more relevant question. The reason is that the question on why when the zara falls first, she is forbidden even if only by zika, because the gemara implies that that should be so by the statement of rav nahman. The question is rather why the Rambam holds that when the erva falls first, she causes her zara to be forbidden only by maamar. That is openly against the statement of Rav Nahman. The answer Rav Shach gives is zika can forbid a zara only by means of absolute marriage, as if the case when the non related woman falls by zika to an erva who is absolutely married. But when the erva comes to forbid her zara by means of zika alone, then she does not have enough power to do so. The question on this is that this is directly in contraction to Rav Nahman who says in this exact case that the erva can cause her zara to be forbidden even when she fall only by zika. To try to answer this it is possible to suggest that there are two kinds of zika, one from the Torah and the other from the words of the scribe. Thus, Rav Nahman might mean that the Mishna comes to exclude that the more severe type of zika. However on further thought, this can not be so because Rav Nahman said that by the fact that the Mishna forbids only the case when maamar was done on the erva, we see the mishna holds that there is no such thing as zika. That has to exclude also zika derabanan because otherwise the mishna would say also by zika the erva forbid the non related woman. Thus I think the Keseph Mishna was right that the Rambam meant that zarat erva bezika is forbidden in both cases and mention this only in one case knowing that the other case could be learned from it by means on an ''all the more so'' kind of logic. That is : if the non related wife falls first and she could be married to either of the brothers married with the sisters, you say if one brother died, she is forbidden in yibum because of the zika, all the more so when the erva falls first and could have yibum with only one brother, then if he dies she can forbid the non related wife to be forbidden by her zika.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a difference in law between to different kinds of cases. One case is where a unrelated woman [נכרית] is has fallen to be required in יבום by means of זיקה. The other case is when the sister wife of the brother has fallen to יבום by זיקה. The second case is קל [to רש''י and רמב''ם,] and forbidden only if מאמר [a statement of קידושין is made on her. But if ONLY זיקה occurred , then the נכרית is permitted]. But the first case is more severe. When it is the נכרית that has fallen to יבום by זיקה, then she is certainly forbidden to רש''י and רמב''ם. And רב איסר מלצר brings down the commentary on the משנה of רמב''ם who suggests that she might be forbidden even דאורייתא. [But to the רשב''א she is forbidden only if מאמר was done on her, i.e., the second brother asked her to marry him.] I would like here to explain the two cases in more detail. Case one. Three brothers. Two are married to two sisters, and one to an unrelated woman (נכרית). The last one died, and so the נכרית is now required to have יבום by means of זיקה. [זיקה is like a magnetic force that pulls on her to either of the remaining brothers]. Then the second brother died. She is totally forbidden to the remaining brother, maybe even אורייתא. [To רש''י רמב''ם, not רשב''א]. The other case. Three brothers. Two of them are married to two sisters, and one to an נכרית. One of the brothers married to a sister died. Now that sister has fallen to יבום to the brother married to the נכרית. If that brother did מאמר on her [i.e., asked her to marry him] and then died, the third brother cannot marry her. But if the second brother did nothing and said nothing, and then died, then the third brother can marry the נכרית.
The question on the רמב''ם from יבמות ל' ע''א 30 is more severe than is generally known. The problem is the משנה brings the case when a the ערווה falls to יבום first. The משנה say if the brother did מאמר on her, then her צרה [the not related wife נכריתה] requires חליצה. Then רב נחמן says that according to the opinion there is זיקה, even just זיקה will cause the non related wife to require חליצה. We hold that there is זיקה, and so it should be clear that in this case, the non related wife is forbidden even without מאמר. Yet the רמב''ם decided the law opposite from what the גמרא states. He writes the non related woman requires חליצה if מאמר was done on the sister.
Then the next משנה brings the case when the non related wife falls to יבום first, and then she and the sister of the wife fall to יבום together. In that case the רמב''ם writes even if the non related woman fell to יבום only by means of זיקה, she requires חליצה. However the משנה there states only if מאמר was done on her, then she requires חליצה. the רמב''ם is deciding the law not like the משנה which says only מאמר causes the non related wife to be forbidden
The way איסר מלצר answer this question on the רמב''ם is that the רמב''ם holds that our subject on page 30 is not according to רבא on page צ''ו that a יבם does יבום only when the wife falls to him from one brother, not two. So our case of the non related wife should clearly forbidden since she has fallen from two brothers. However רב שך points out that that applies only when מאמר was done on by both brothers, not just זיקה as he shows from מ''ג ע''ב
The way רב שך understands this רמב''ם is that he takes the question on why when the ערוה falls to יבום first and then she forbids her צרה to be forbidden only by מאמר is the more relevant question. The reason is that the question on why when the נכרית falls first, she is forbidden even if only by זיקה, because the גמרא implies that that should be so by the statement of רב נחמן. The question is rather why the רמב''ם holds that when the ערוה falls first, she causes her צרה to be forbidden only by מאמר. That is openly against the statement of רב נחמן. The answer רב שך gives is זיקה can forbid a צרה only by means of absolute marriage, as if the case when the non related woman falls by זיקה to an ערוה who is absolutely married. But when the ערוה comes to forbid her צרה by means of זיקה alone, then she does not have enough power to do so. The question on this is that this is directly in contraction to רב נחמן who says in this exact case that the ערוה can cause her צרה to be forbidden even when she fall only by זיקה. To try to answer this it is possible to suggest that there are two kinds of זיקה, one from the תורה and the other from the words of the סופרים. Thus, רב נחמן might mean that the משנה comes to exclude that the more חמור סוג of זיקה. However on further thought, this can not be so because רב נחמן said that by the fact that the משנה forbids only the case when מאמר was done on the ערוה, we see the משנה holds that there is no such thing as זיקה. That has to exclude also זיקה דרבנן because otherwise the משנה would say also by זיקה the ערוה forbid the non related woman. Thus I think the כסף משנה was right that the רמב''ם meant that צרת ערוה בזיקה is forbidden in both cases, and mention this only in one case knowing that the other case could be learned from it by means on an ''קל וחומר'' kind of logic. That is : if the נכרית falls first and she could be married to either of the brothers married with the sisters, you say if one brother died, she is forbidden in יבום because of the זיקה, all the more so when the ערוה falls first and could have יבום with only one brother, then if he dies, she can forbid the non related wife to be forbidden by her זיקה.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
השאלה
ברמב''ם ביבמות ל' ע''א חמורה מהידוע.
הבעיה היא שהמשנה מביאה את המקרה כאשר הערווה נופלת ליבום ראשונה. המשנה אומרת אם
האח עשה עליה מאמר, הרי צרה שלה חייבת חליצה. ואז רב נחמן אומר שלפי הדעה יש זיקה,
אפילו רק זיקה תגרום לאישה הלא קרובה לדרוש חליצה. אנו קובעים שיש זיקה, ולכן צריך
להיות ברור שבמקרה זה, האישה הלא קרובה אסורה גם בלי מאמר. אולם הרמב''ם הכריע את
הדין הפוך ממה שקובע הגמרא. הוא כותב שהאישה שאינה קשורה דורשת חליצה אם מאמר
נעשה על האחות. ואז המשנה הבאה מביאה את המקרה שבו האישה הלא קרובה נופלת ליבום
ראשונה, ואז היא ואחותה של האישה נופלות ליבום ביחד. במקרה כזה כותב הרמב''ם גם אם
האישה הלא קרובה נפלה ליבום רק באמצעות זיקה, היא דרושה חליצה. אולם המשנה שם
קובעת רק אם מאמר נעשה עליה, אז היא דרושה חליצה. הרמב''ם פוסק את הדין לא כמו
המשנה שאומרת שרק מאמר גורם לאישה הלא קרובה לאיסור
הדרך
שבה רב שך מבין את הרמב''ם הזה הוא שהוא לוקח את השאלה למה כשהערוה נופלת יבום
תחילה ואז היא אוסרת את צרה שלה ליאסר רק על ידי המאמר היא השאלה היותר רלוונטית.
הסיבה היא שהשאלה מדוע כשהנכרית נופלת תחילה היא אסורה ולו רק על ידי זיקה, משום
שהגמרא רומז שכך צריך להיות על ידי אמירת רב נחמן. השאלה היא דווקא מדוע הרמב''ם
סובר שכאשר נופלת הערוה ראשון, היא גורמת לאיסור צרה רק על ידי המאמר. זה נוגד
בגלוי את דבריו של רב נחמן. התשובה שרב שך נותן היא זיקה יכולה לאסור על שרה רק
באמצעות נישואים מוחלטים, כאילו במקרה שבו האישה הלא קרובה נופלת על ידי זיקה
לערוה שנשואה לחלוטין. אבל כשהערוה באה לאסור עליה את צרה באמצעות זיקה בלבד, אז
אין לה די כוח לעשות כן. השאלה על זה היא שזה ישר כנגד לרב נחמן שאומר בדיוק במקרה
הזה שהערוה יכולה לגרום לאסור לה לצרה גם כשתיפול רק על ידי זיקה. כדי לנסות לענות
על זה אפשר להציע שיש שני סוגים של זיקה, האחד מהתורה והשני מדברי הסופרים. לכן,
רב נחמן עשוי להתכוון לכך שהמשנה בא להוציא את הסוג החמור יותר של זיקה. אולם
במחשבה נוספת, זה לא יכול להיות כך, כי רב נחמן אמר שבעובדה שהמשנה אוסרת רק את
המקרה כאשר המאמר נעשה על הערוה, אנו רואים את המשנה גורס שאין דבר כזה זיקה. זה
חייב להוציא גם את זיקה דרבנן כי אחרת המשנה תאמר גם על ידי זיקת הערוה אסורה הנכרת
(האישה שאינה קרובה). לפיכך אני חושב שהכסף משנה צדק שהרמב''ם התכוון שצרת ערוה
בזיקה אסורה בשני המקרים, ומזכיר זאת רק במקרה אחד מתוך ידיעה שאפשר ללמוד ממנו את
המקרה השני באמצעות ''קל וחומר'' סוג של היגיון. כלומר: אם נפלה הנכרית תחילה
ויכלה להינשא לכל אחד מהאחים הנשואים עם האחיות, אתה אומר אם מת אח אחד אסורה
ביבום מחמת הזיקה, על אחת כמה וכמה כשנופל הערוה תחילה ויכולה להיות יבום עם אח
אחד בלבד, אז אם הוא ימות, היא יכולה לאסור על האישה הלא קרובה להיות אסורה על ידי
זיקה שלה.
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.
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