Yevamot 3 - March 10, 7 Adar 2

Study Guide Yevamot 3

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm with gratitude to Hashem for a new granddaughter, Dahlia Hadar. “Mazal tov to her parents, Bracha and Akiva Berger!” 

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sylvia Simmons in loving memory of her father, Avrom Simmons, Avraham Nachum ben Yisrael on his yahrzeit. “'Brand plucked from fire,' survivor of Kovno ghetto, he planted the seeds for my studies with Hadran community of Talmud learners.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Susan Shabsels. “I would like to dedicate my learning today to the success of The Hamptons Synagogue's brilliant Rabbi Marc Schneier in his tireless efforts on behalf of interreligious and ethnic understanding between Muslims and Jews as evidenced by his brokering the meeting between Turkey's president Erdogan and Israel's president Herzog.”

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Moshe ben Amram, Moshe Rabbenu. 

All the cases in the Mishna are derived from the case of "his wife's sister" - if so, why does the Mishna start with "his daughter" and not that case? Is it because "his daughter" is learned from a drasha? No! It is because "his daughter" is the closest to him and therefore the Mishna began with that case. The order and categorization of the cases in the Mishna is explained. Why is the word "exempt" used in the Mishna and not "forbidden"? Why does the Mishna specify the number fifteen at the beginning of the Mishna and then again mentions them at the end "and these"? It is coming to limit the cases where the second wife is exempt to those 15 alone and not to two other cases mentioned by Rav and Rav Asi (who held they also exempt the second wife). How would Rav and Rav Asi then explain our Mishna - what is excluded by the number fifteen and why doesn't the Mishna mention the other two cases that they claim has the same laws as the cases in the Mishna? The  laws of the Mishna are all derived from the case of his wife's sister in the Torah. How? It can be understood from the derivation that if we didn't have the derivation, one could have thought that a brother would be permitted to perform levirate marriage with his wife's sister - why? Is it because a positive commandment overrides a negative one? Does that principle apply to a negative commandment punishable by karet?