- This topic has 55 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
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.
Answer is pashut (put in other thread).
The brother died childless. And that’s why there would be yibum.
My 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.)
Ah, 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”
Best 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.
I mentioned the first wife dying so that the Yerusha is only for him. Obviously the brother dies as well.
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.
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.
Tosafos 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.
In 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”.
The 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.
(Alternatively)
PAA: so you really have a kasha in yevamos–go ask your kashas in yevamos–why are you hocking here
It 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?)
1. 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.
Tosafos was not bothered about him doing Yibum. His problem was that the brother would think he doesn’t have to.
No, 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.
I have more answers, rabim v’nechbadim m’eileh. But no time now except to chuckle at PAA’s comment.
2)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.
I 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.
According to Popa’s current Terutz Tosafos should say, ?? ???? ?????. By saying ????? ????? ??? he is saying that they will ignore the active Zika.
DY, 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?
I 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 ?? ???????? ???? ???.
HaLeiVi, 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.
I 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.
The 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!
My wife says it was worth putting up with all the techeiles posts just to get this thread.
Big 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.
But anyhow, Popa, if there is another brother then giving it to this one is Gezeila.
PBA: 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.
But 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.
The 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
Rabim Uchveidim Me’eileh.
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?
Tiferes Yaakov asks this kashya.
The Maharsha might be helpful.
Also, 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.
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.
I’m suggesting that the ?”? didn’t learn that way.
DY, 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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.