Home › Forums › Bais Medrash › Yavam inheriting father who was a ger
- This topic has 55 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by Patur Aval Assur.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 30, 2014 4:07 am at 4:07 am #613302Patur Aval AssurParticipant
The Gemara in Kidushin 17b quotes a mishnah which speaks about someone who borrowed money from a ger who has a kid who converted with him and the ger died. The halacha is that you don’t return the money to the kid and if you do ??? ??? ????? ???? ?????. The Gemara contradicts this with a braisa which says ??? ????? ???? ?????. The Gemara answers that one case was talking about ????? ?????? ??? ?????? whereas the other case was talking about ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????. In the top Tosafos on 18a, the Ri explains that ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? is referring to the case of ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? – we don’t want people to think that this kid is a full Jew, because he might do yibum (if he has a dead brother) and in reality it is an invalid yibum and if there is another brother who was ????? ?????? ?????? then that other brother would really still have a chiyuv of Yibum. My question is that if there is a brother who is ????? ?????? ?????? then he would be a full-fledged inheritor of his father and the borrower would have to repay the loan to him and this whole case could never start.
July 30, 2014 9:23 pm at 9:23 pm #1039542HaLeiViParticipantWe don’t want people to think that any case of ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? is a Yid, since this would bring about big trouble. Lav Davka is the case of having a brother the same person to whom you want to return the money.
And if they he was Megayer with his mother and father and his father ended up having more sons from a different wife and the first wife dies, the Shaala is ???? as well.
July 30, 2014 11:00 pm at 11:00 pm #1039543Patur Aval AssurParticipant“We don’t want people to think that any case of ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? is a Yid, since this would bring about big trouble. Lav Davka is the case of having a brother the same person to whom you want to return the money.”
Tosafos is specifically saying that the “big trouble” would be yibum problems.
“And if they he was Megayer with his mother and father and his father ended up having more sons from a different wife and the first wife dies, the Shaala is ???? as well.”
I think you meant that the first brother dies, but it wouldn’t be a problem because yibum is only with brothers from the same father.
July 30, 2014 11:25 pm at 11:25 pm #1039544popa_bar_abbaParticipantAnswer is pashut (put in other thread).
The brother died childless. And that’s why there would be yibum.
July 31, 2014 12:35 am at 12:35 am #1039545Patur Aval AssurParticipantMaybe all the pronouns are confusing people. So I’ll give everyone names. Tanpi is the original ger. Kulso is the kid who is ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????. Rovi is the brother who dies without having kids. Tosafos’s explanation is that people might think that Kulso is a full fledged Jew and therefore if Kulso does yibum to Rovi’s wife, people will think it is a valid yibum when in reality it wasn’t. This is problematic if Rovi has a brother, Deny, who is a son of Kulso that was ????? ?????? ?????? in which case there is still a chiyuv of yibum on Deny. My question is that if Deny exists then the borrower would have to pay back the loan to Deny. (My question is not about the yibum part.)
July 31, 2014 1:01 am at 1:01 am #1039546popa_bar_abbaParticipantMy answer above.
Deny does not exist. Never did.
Tanpi has two sons: Kulso and Rovi.
Tanpi lends money to reuven.
Rovi dies childless, leaving his wife Kilonia.
Tanpi dies.
Reuven is considering returning the money to Kulso.
Reuven should not, lest Kulso be meyabem Kilonia.
If he does, people will think they are married. And then when he is mekadesh Kilonia’s sister Chorga, they will think it is not kiddushin.
Hashta d’asinan l’hachi, we may as well say that Rovi is also horaso shelo b’kdusha. Oh well. So you don’t even need the full cleverness of my answer.)
July 31, 2014 2:11 am at 2:11 am #1039547Patur Aval AssurParticipantSorry, I made a mistake in my last post. I meant that Deny is a son of Tanpi.
Either which way, what you are saying does not address what I am talking about. Tosafos says ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????. He doesn’t say that the problem is that people will think that Kilonia is married to him and that people will think that if he’s mekadesh Chorga it is invalid. Tosafos specifically mentions the existence of Deni. (I feel like I once I asked this question to someone and they gave this answer about Kilonia and Chorga, but I could be imagining it.) So I don’t think this answer is tenable with the words of Tosafos.
July 31, 2014 2:52 am at 2:52 am #1039548popa_bar_abbaParticipantAh, I hadn’t read the tosfos. Didn’t realize tosfos had explicated the problem was Deni.
Also, I made a mistake–her name was not Kilonia, it was Kalinia.
Anyway, the answer is that the ri holds eishes ach shelo haya b’olamo falls to yibum if already pregnant, but, does not receive yerusha. We learn it from naami “gam halayla hayisi l’ish”
July 31, 2014 3:29 am at 3:29 am #1039549☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantBest answer given so far is HaLeiVi’s (part 1).
Still, why couldn’t the Ri give a case nogeia to this ger, such as if he is mekadesh his father’s wife? The Ran and Ritva do, in fact, give such a case.
July 31, 2014 3:57 am at 3:57 am #1039550Patur Aval AssurParticipantHaLeiVi’s answer was along the lines of Popa’s answer which doesn’t really read into Tosafos. Maybe that’s what you mean with your second paragraph.
July 31, 2014 4:29 am at 4:29 am #1039551Patur Aval AssurParticipant“Anyway, the answer is that the ri holds eishes ach shelo haya b’olamo falls to yibum if already pregnant, but, does not receive yerusha. We learn it from naami “gam halayla hayisi l’ish””
Except that Tosafos in Yevamos 17b says ????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? i.e. none other than the Ri says that this is precisely the case which we need the pasuk of ?? ???? ???? ???? to tell us that there is no yibum.
July 31, 2014 6:48 am at 6:48 am #1039552HaLeiViParticipantI mentioned the first wife dying so that the Yerusha is only for him. Obviously the brother dies as well.
July 31, 2014 7:34 am at 7:34 am #1039553HaLeiViParticipantStill, why couldn’t the Ri give a case nogeia to this ger, such as if he is mekadesh his father’s wife? The Ran and Ritva do, in fact, give such a case.
Or worse, that if his brother is a real brother from his mother that we should be Choshesh that he might do Yibum which would be an Erva. Why does Tosafos only bring up a Zekuka marrying out?
As for your Kasha, why should we care about him being Machmir in vain? Tosafos brought up an issue of where him being a full Yisroel would bring Issurim. And as for my Kasha, Tosafos’ doesn’t want to add more people to the story (which makes is less likely) in order to bring out the point.
July 31, 2014 7:40 am at 7:40 am #1039554HaLeiViParticipantTosafos is specifically saying that the “big trouble” would be yibum problems.
Right. And therefore..? Yibum is where it would be a problem for people to think that this type of person is a full fledged born Yisroel. Tosafos is not applying it to this person. All these types of Gezeiros work this way: we don’t want people to draw wrong conclusions.
July 31, 2014 12:08 pm at 12:08 pm #1039555akupermaParticipantIn the real world, the father would have arranged (through a will or gifts and/or through private contractual agreements with the creditors) to protect the interests of the son who converted together with the family (regardless of how halacha characterized the relationship). This of course is irrelevant to the legal principles being discussed in the gemarra.
As is common in any legal system in which the full details of actual cases are not reported (i.e. like almost every other legal system in the world other than the Anglo-American system), the discussion of the case in the gemarra focuses on details related to the legal issue being discussed. The real world is always messier with “facts not on point”.
July 31, 2014 1:10 pm at 1:10 pm #1039556popa_bar_abbaParticipantThe answer is pashut.
Deni (levi) is also dead. The issue is whether there was a zika back when he was alive. Who cares? Because deni (levi) had meanwhile married achos zekukaso and had kids and we want to know if they’re pagum.
So if you pay yorin (shimon) the loan, people will think he can be meyabeim kilonia (the yevama), and that that lmafrea nullifies the zika that deni (levi) had.
July 31, 2014 1:11 pm at 1:11 pm #1039557popa_bar_abbaParticipant(Alternatively)
PAA: so you really have a kasha in yevamos–go ask your kashas in yevamos–why are you hocking here
July 31, 2014 1:41 pm at 1:41 pm #1039558Patur Aval AssurParticipant“Tosafos is not applying it to this person.”
??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????
How is this not applying it to this person? Tosafos is clearly saying that people will think that the other brothers will no longer have a zikah and I am alleging that it is impossible for their to be other brothers who could have a potential chiyuv of yibum.
July 31, 2014 3:21 pm at 3:21 pm #1039559HaLeiViParticipantIt is not impossible if we are talking about money owedd to his mother. And, as I said, Tosafos is describing the issue of being Machlif a Nolad Bikedusha with an Horaso Bikedusha.
When Tosafos mentioned the Ichlufi (like Rashi, BTW) he was referring to any such person. Thereafter, the him and his are about the Ichlufites and not the Yoresh.
Another scenario is if the father requested that you pay it to that son but he didn’t do a Matnas Sh’chiv Mera. But, in that case Tosafos wouldn’t be running to Yibum. It would be Gezel to give it to him instead of his brother. What if the brother is Mochel the Chov? (In general, what happens when one Yoresh is Mochel?)
July 31, 2014 3:28 pm at 3:28 pm #1039560Patur Aval AssurParticipant“Deni (levi) is also dead. The issue is whether there was a zika back when he was alive. Who cares? Because deni (levi) had meanwhile married achos zekukaso and had kids and we want to know if they’re pagum.
So if you pay yorin (shimon) the loan, people will think he can be meyabeim kilonia (the yevama), and that that lmafrea nullifies the zika that deni (levi) had.”
I think this is your best answer so far, but I think it still has a few issues. First of all, I don’t think it nullifies it lemafrea. Even if it does, achos zekukaso is only d’rabanan so the kids wouldn’t be mamzerim anyway. Also, if Deni had kids then lichora his kids would inherit the loan. Now you could say the same answer without using lemafrea – Rovi died and then Kulso does yibum to Kilonia and then Deny marries Chorga. Then Deny dies and then Tanpi dies. In reality Kulso’s yibum was invalid and therefore Chorga was Deny’s achos zekukaso all along. But if the borrower repays the loan to Kulso then people will think that Kulso’s yibum was valid and that therefore Deny’s marriage to Chorga was not achos zekukaso. However this tweak would only address my first issue.
July 31, 2014 4:53 pm at 4:53 pm #1039561popa_bar_abbaParticipant1. I think it might. see 17b-18a in yevamos.
2. Pagum, not mamzeirim.
3. Also dead. Nafka mina is if their wives are muttar to kohanim.
4. I understood tosfos that people will let him do yibum if you repay loan; that is, the repayment has to be before the yibum.
July 31, 2014 5:30 pm at 5:30 pm #1039562HaLeiViParticipantTosafos was not bothered about him doing Yibum. His problem was that the brother would think he doesn’t have to.
July 31, 2014 6:33 pm at 6:33 pm #1039563popa_bar_abbaParticipantNo, problem was people will think there is no zika to brother. Tosfos was careful to not say they will think brother does not have to do yibum, since he meant my answer.
July 31, 2014 8:02 pm at 8:02 pm #1039564Patur Aval AssurParticipantPopa:
1)If anything I think it’s mashma from there that it doesn’t work lemafrea because if it did work lemafrea then why (in the mishna that’s quoted from 41a) does the brother have to wait to do nissuin for someone to do yibum/chalitza or for the yevama to die? He could just do nissuin and later it will be lemafrea not achos zekukaso. (Admittedly this is not such a good proof, which is why I said that I’m not sure.)
2)I don’t think they would be pagum either. But I don’t know if it’s discussed. The best I could come up with is the sugya by the bottom mishnah on 44a, but the whole discussion over there is by issurei d’oraisa. Feel free to correct me on this.
3)If I’m right about number 2 then number 3 would also not be an issue. (I think you have a fixation with dead people.)
4)You might be right about this one (MIGHT.)
July 31, 2014 8:06 pm at 8:06 pm #1039565Patur Aval AssurParticipantHaleivi:
I’m still not sure what you are trying to say. Tosafos clearly has two elements to his case which I think are mutually exclusive:
1)There is another fully Jewish son of the original ger who is available for Yibum.
2)There is no inheritor of the original ger.
The reason why I think they are mutually exclusive is that by definition if he is eligible for yibum then he would be an inheritor. Popa is trying to avoid this issue by killing off anyone he can get his hands on but I don’t see how you are avoiding it.
July 31, 2014 9:04 pm at 9:04 pm #1039566popa_bar_abbaParticipantI have more answers, rabim v’nechbadim m’eileh. But no time now except to chuckle at PAA’s comment.
July 31, 2014 9:43 pm at 9:43 pm #1039567HaLeiViParticipant2)There is no inheritor of the original ger.
That is your assumption, not Tosafos. Nevertheless, I am saying that you put everything into one person and there’s no reason to think Tosafos did the same. We don’t want you to treat this particular fellow like a full fledged ????? ?????? because of what will happen to the other ????? ?????? who might do Yibum when they shouldn’t while those who should won’t.
Or, if he said that this son should Yarshen the loan then the two are not mutually exclusive.
July 31, 2014 10:14 pm at 10:14 pm #1039568☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantI like the kasha better than any teirutzim offered here. But I’ll offer another, with the hakdamah hayadua:
The answer is pashut.
If he returns the borrowed money equally to the two brothers (with Deni’s consent) it could cause a problem. He has to return it only to Deni.
July 31, 2014 10:17 pm at 10:17 pm #1039569HaLeiViParticipantAccording to Popa’s current Terutz Tosafos should say, ?? ???? ?????. By saying ????? ????? ??? he is saying that they will ignore the active Zika.
July 31, 2014 10:23 pm at 10:23 pm #1039570HaLeiViParticipantDY, if he returns it equally then he is stealing from the others. The whole issue in Tosafos is about being a nice guy and giving it. What I wrote earlier was using this Terutz as the seed. If the others are Mochel then this can work, but I’m not sure of the Halachos of some Yorshim being Mochel a Chov. Does that eliminate the whole Chov, their part, or nothing?
July 31, 2014 10:39 pm at 10:39 pm #1039571benignumanParticipantI think DaasYochid is right.
The Mishna quoted on 17b says ?? ????? ????? (plural). But the Gemara goes on to discuss ????? ?????? (singular). The Ri is understanding the Mishna to be saying do not give it back to his children (plural) because one of the children is ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????. The other (living) brother, however, might be ????? ?????? ??????.
This is somewhat dochek however because the Mishna implies that both brothers were m’gayer with the father. On the other hand, this dochek should not hold us back because anyway the Gemara’s answer requires this dochek because even ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? cannot be said to be literally ?? ???????? ???? ???.
July 31, 2014 10:56 pm at 10:56 pm #1039572Patur Aval AssurParticipant“That is your assumption, not Tosafos”
Neither. It’s the Gemara’s assumption. The whole case under discussion is whether it is frowned upon to return the loan to a ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????. If there is a legal inheritor then you would have to return it to him and there would be no case.
“We don’t want you to treat this particular fellow like a full fledged ????? ?????? because of what will happen to the other ????? ?????? who might do Yibum when they shouldn’t while those who should won’t.”
But it would only happen in a case where there is a brother who is ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? and a brother who is ????? ?????? ??????. Which again means that there is an inheritor.
“Or, if he said that this son should Yarshen the loan then the two are not mutually exclusive.”
I don’t think that would work either because mima nifshach – if he didn’t do it in a legally binding way then the ????? ?????? ?????? would still inherit it, and if he did it in a legally binding way then the the ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? would be entitled to it al pi din in which case the case of ??? ????? ???? ????? is incorrect because the halacha should be that you have to return it. (The two cases have to be talking about the same case because the only difference that the Gemara is mechadesh is that one case was ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? and the other case was ????? ?????? ??? ??????
July 31, 2014 11:00 pm at 11:00 pm #1039573Patur Aval AssurParticipant“I like the kasha better than any teirutzim offered here.”
DaasYochid agrees to me?
July 31, 2014 11:03 pm at 11:03 pm #1039574☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantHaLeiVi, that’s why I stipulated with the brother’s consent. I’m keeping it simple, with one other brother, who might be maskim to split the yerushah even though technically he gets the whole thing.
August 1, 2014 2:46 am at 2:46 am #1039575Sam2ParticipantI object to this thread on the grounds that it may lead to Iyun.
Also, I object to this thread because it’s been on my mind for 2 days now and I have no good answer whatsoever.
August 1, 2014 2:49 am at 2:49 am #1039576popa_bar_abbaParticipantThe answer is pashut.
Deni is alive. The fear is you will pay Kulso and then Kulso will die. Then, since you paid him, people will think he was a real brother, and then when Kisloach falls to Deni now, it is eishes shtei achim!
August 1, 2014 3:07 am at 3:07 am #1039577popa_bar_abbaParticipantMy wife says it was worth putting up with all the techeiles posts just to get this thread.
August 1, 2014 3:34 am at 3:34 am #1039578Patur Aval AssurParticipant“I object to this thread on the grounds that it may lead to Iyun.”
August 1, 2014 3:37 am at 3:37 am #1039579HaLeiViParticipantBig deal, so they’ll do Chalitza instead of Yibum?
DY, so you are saying Mochel half instead of Mochel the whole.
PAA, you are right. So that Pshat is out the window. We are left with 1- The Chashash is about someone else. 2- The brother is Mochel (Not optimal. Okimta.) and 3- Yerusha of his mother. (Also problematic because the Halacha is probably that he rightfully is her Yoresh).
The first is true anyhow. This is how all Chashashos work: we don’t want people to confuse the Halacha. Yevamos is full of this.
August 1, 2014 3:41 am at 3:41 am #1039580Patur Aval AssurParticipantPopa:
I was serious when I said that I liked your previous answer. It was a creative mehalech and it fit with Tosafos’s words. I just had a few external objections.
But I don’t get your latest answer. Which may or may not be because I don’t know who Kisloach is.
“My wife says it was worth putting up with all the techeiles posts just to get this thread.”
I assume she means that by making this thread I am keeping you out of trouble because you are so busy here with your answers that are rabim v’nechbadim m’eileh that you don’t have time to make trouble anywhere else.
August 1, 2014 3:52 am at 3:52 am #1039581HaLeiViParticipantBut anyhow, Popa, if there is another brother then giving it to this one is Gezeila.
August 1, 2014 4:11 am at 4:11 am #1039582Sam2ParticipantPBA: Your Pashut answer can’t be because that’s not what Tosfos says. Tosfos explicitly says the issue is that the one who is Horaso Shelo Bikdushah V’leidaso Bikdushah might be M’yabeim and then everyone will think she is now Pattur and really she will be a Shomeres Yavam who is Mezaneh whenever she is with the brother who was improperly M’yabeim her (or any other future husband). Tosfos explicitly says that the issue is that people will think she’s not Z’kukah any more to the other (real) brothers, which makes your answer about it being a future Chashash if this brother dies untenable.
August 1, 2014 5:12 am at 5:12 am #1039583popa_bar_abbaParticipantBut I don’t get your latest answer. Which may or may not be because I don’t know who Kisloach is.
Kisloach was Kilonia. I forgot her name.
It didn’t make any sense, because it had the brother being alive, so why doesn’t he get the money. I said it anyway because a chance to bring in eishes shnei yevamin.
Sam: I hadn’t read the tosfos when I wrote the first answer.
Anyway, the answer is pashut.
The brother is also a horaso shelo b’kdusha. That’s why he won’t get the money before our guy. But if you give our guy the money, they’ll let him do yibum and patur the house. Meanwhile, really, both brothers should do chalitza because it is a chalitza pesula.
August 1, 2014 5:25 am at 5:25 am #1039584popa_bar_abbaParticipantThe answer is pashut.
You are the brother. You can’t just keep it, because then you won’t be mekayeim the mitzva of paying it back.
V’dok v’timtza kalus rosh
August 1, 2014 6:44 am at 6:44 am #1039585HaLeiViParticipantRabim Uchveidim Me’eileh.
August 3, 2014 3:43 am at 3:43 am #1039586☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantOr worse, that if his brother is a real brother from his mother that we should be Choshesh that he might do Yibum which would be an Erva. Why does Tosafos only bring up a Zekuka marrying out?
Tiferes Yaakov asks this kashya.
The Maharsha might be helpful.
August 3, 2014 4:04 am at 4:04 am #1039587☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantAlso, the answer (to PAA’s kashya) is pashut.
The Ri holds that “ein ruach chachomim niche heimenu” is theoretical, not actual; the beraisa means that had the chachomim instituted yerusha for a ger, there would be yibum issues, so they didn’t.
August 3, 2014 4:34 am at 4:34 am #1039588Patur Aval AssurParticipant“The Ri holds that “ein ruach chachomim niche heimenu” is theoretical, not actual; the beraisa means that had the chachomim instituted yerusha for a ger, there would be yibum issues, so they didn’t.”
I think the beraisa was saying that even though there is no yerusha it is still frowned upon by the Rabbis to return it, because that might lead to yibum problems.
August 3, 2014 6:45 am at 6:45 am #1039589☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantI think the beraisa was saying that even though there is no yerusha it is still frowned upon by the Rabbis to return it, because that might lead to yibum problems.
I’m suggesting that the ?”? didn’t learn that way.
August 3, 2014 12:44 pm at 12:44 pm #1039590HaLeiViParticipantDY, do you mean anything different than my first, and main Pshat?
I think I should add that even without any Kasha this is the way I’d understand Tosafos.
A side point. There is an Hagaah changing the Ein Ruach Chachamim to Ruach Chachamim in the words of Rabbeinu Tam. There is no need to change it if you see the Tosafos in BB referenced in Massores Hashas. Rabbeinu Tam takes it for granted that there is another side to the coin.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.