Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Daf Yomi Yevamot 21a: Who Is Rav's Fourth?

I ask questions here, and provide source materials. I have clear preferences in answers, but much more thought is due than what I give it here.

Bavli Yevamot 21a:

אמר רב ארבע נשים יש להן הפסק נקיט רב בידיה תלת אשת אחי האם מן האב ואשת אחי האב מן האם וכלתו וזעירי מוסיף אף אשת אבי אמו
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וסימניך דעילאי דרב
ורב מאי טעמא לא חשיב ליה מיחלפא ליה באשת אבי אביו
וזעירי להתם שכיח ואזיל להכא לא שכיח ואזיל

Rav said: Four women have a break {in that only they are forbidden but not their descendants or ancestors}.
And Rav had in his hand three: The wife of his mother's paternal brother, the wife of his father's maternal brother, and the daughter-in-law of his daughter.
And Zeiri added: even the wife of his mother's father.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: And your mnemonic is "above that of Rav" {since it is one more than what he had in his hand, and it is one generation above that of Rav, going to the third generation.
And Rav, for what reason did he not reckon it? It will be confused with the wife of his father's father {who is forbidden Biblically, and who has no such break. therefore, they set no limit by her}.
And Zeiri {what reason does he say they set the limit in this case}? There {to the father's family}, it is common to go; here {the mother's family} one does not usually go.
Rif cites both Rav and Zeiri, which means we pasken like both of them.

Let us set aside the setama digmara's analysis for a moment, in which there is a dispute between Rav and Zeiri, and a reason why each does not hold like the other.

Note that Rav states that four women have a "break," but is only able to identify three. Why, then, say four?

There are at least two possibilities here. Recall that Rav is a first generation Amora, who studied braytot in Eretz Yisrael. One possibility is that Rav is recalling some tradition in a brayta that there are four such women, but is only able to come up with three of them. If so, perhaps Zeiri is coming up with the fourth, and Rav is grateful to him for this. What then of the setama digmara's analysis? We can apply it to the reason Rav did not come up with it initially. (After all, we pasken like Zeiri anyway. Why not let Rav agree.) Or else the setama came up with an excellent reason, but in fact Rav would hold like Zeiri. Alternatively, even after Zeiri spoke, Rav still disagreed, and still searches for that fourth case.

Another possibility is that Rav himself came up with four, but could not remember the fourth that he came up with. And then we can bring in all the possibilities listed above.

This is all if we only work locally, in Bavel. However, if we cast our eyes to Eretz Yisrael, to the Talmud Yerushalmi, perhaps we can find Rav's forgotten fourth woman.

{In Bavli, Before Rav's statement, we have the following definition of secondary forbidden relatives: ת"ר מה הם שניות אם אמו ואם אביו ואשת אבי אביו ואשת אבי אמו ואשת אחי האב מן האם ואשת אחי האם מן האב וכלת בנו וכלת בתו ומותר אדם באשת חמיו ובאשת חורגו ואסור בבת חורגו וחורגו מותר באשתו ובתו ואשת חורגו אומרת לו אני מותרת לך ובתי אסורה לך:
Our Rabbis taught: Who are the forbidden relatives in the second degree? — His mother's mother, his father's mother, his father's father's wife, his mother's fathers wife, the wife of his father's maternal brother, the wife of his mother's paternal brother, the daughter-in-law of his son daughter-in-law his daughter. A man is permitted to marry the wife of his father-in-law and the wife of his step-son but is forbidden to marry the daughter of his step-son. His step-son is permitted to marry his wife and his daughter. The wife of his step-son may say to him, 'I am permitted to you though daughter is forbidden to you'.}

Yerushalmi Yevamot 12a:
דף יב,א פרק ב הלכה ד גמרא

ואלו הן השניות
אם אביו
אם אמו
אשת אבי אביו.
ואשת אבי אמו.
אשת בן בנו
ואשת בן בתו.
אשת אחי אמו
ואשת אחי אביו מאמו.

תני רבי חנין אומר כולהון אין להן הפסק חוץ מאשת אבי אמו.
בר קפרא אמר כולהון יש להן הפסק דבר קפרא מוסיף אם אבי אמו ואם אבי אביו.
רב אמר כלת בנו יש לה הפסק.
מה פליג. כלת בנו ממקום אחר באת
So first it lists all the shniyot, secondary Rabbinically forbidden relatives. Then, there is a definition of who has this "break."

They taught {a brayta}: Rabbi Chanin says that all of them {the shniyot} do not have this "break" property except for the wife of his mother's father.
Bar Kappara {also a quasi-tanna, arranger of braytot just as Rabbi arranged Mishnayot} said: All of them have "breakage" -- for Bar Kappara adds his mother's father's mother and his father's father's mother.
Rav said: His son's daughter-in-law has "breakage."
What is the source of the dispute? His son's daughter-in-law comes from another place.
Interestingly, Zeiri's addition -- the wife of his mother's father -- is in fact the only exclusion given by Rabbi Chanin in the brayta.

Rav's case of his daughter's daughter-in-law does not appear in Yerushalmi.

If we bring in the Bavli, though, Rav does not agree with bar Kappara -- which is fine, because Rav tanna hu ufalig. The question is whether he agrees with Rabbi Chanin, brought in the brayta, which is seems bar Kappara was reacting to. If so, Zeiri is reminding Rav of the opinion in the brayta, to give him his fourth.

However, the Yerushalmi also gives us an explicit fourth attributed to Rav. Therefore, it would seem that Rav also rejects Rabbi Chanin, and Rav's fourth is his son's daughter-in-law, parallel to his daughter's daughter-in-law.

Tzarich iyyun and zeman, which I don't have at the moment. There is much more to say, but things are going on in which I cannot focus. Maybe I will revisit this later. See also the suggested girsological changes on the Yerushalmi by the meforshim.

Note: This post underwent a hurried extensive stealth edit shortly after being posted. Hopefully it still makes sense.

No comments:


Blog Widget by LinkWithin