1

Mishnayos Y'vamos chapter 15:

האשה שהלכה היא ובעלה למדינת הים ובאה ואמרה מת בעלי, תינשא ותיטול כתובתה וצרתה אסורה. היתה בת ישראל לכהן, תאכל בתרומה, דברי רבי טרפון. רבי עקיבא אומר, אין זו דרך מוציאתה מידי עבירה עד שתהא אסורה לינשא ואסורה מלאכול בתרומה. אמרה מת בעלי ואחר כך מת חמי, תינשא ותיטול כתובתה, וחמותה אסורה. היתה בת ישראל לכהן, תאכל בתרומה, דברי רבי טרפון. רבי עקיבא אומר, אין זו דרך מוציאתה מידי עברה עד שתהא אסורה לינשא ואסורה לאכול בתרומה. קידש אחת מחמש נשים ואינו יודע איזו קידש, כל אחת אומרת אותי קידש, נותן גט לכל אחת ואחת ומניח כתובה ביניהן ומסתלק, דברי רבי טרפון. רבי עקיבא אומר, אין זו דרך מוציאתו מידי עבירה עד שיתן גט וכתובה לכל אחת ואחת. גזל אחד מחמשה ואין יודע מאיזה גזל, כל אחד אומר אותי גזל, מניח גזילה ביניהן ומסתלק, דברי רבי טרפון. רבי עקיבא אומר: אין זו דרך מוציאתו מידי עבירה עד שישלם גזילה לכל אחד ואחד.‏

A woman who both she and her husband went overseas, then she returned and said "my husband died", may marry and take her k'suba money, but her co-wife is forbidden. If [the co-wife] was a non-kohen woman married to a kohen, she may [continue] to eat t'ruma, says R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says, that's no way to keep her from sinning, unless she's forbidden to marry and forbidden to eat t'ruma.

If she said "my husband died and then my father-in-law died", she may marry and take her k'suba money, but her mother-in-law is forbidden. If [the mother-in-law] was a non-kohen woman married to a kohen, she may [continue] to eat t'ruma, says R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says, that's no way to keep her from sinning, unless she's forbidden to marry and forbidden to eat t'ruma.

If someone betrothed one of five women and doesn't know which he betrothed, and each says "he betrothed me", he gives each a bill of divorce and sets the k'suba money [in escrow for] them and is done, says R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says, that's no way to keep him from sinning, unless he gives a bill of divorce and [the full] k'suba money to each one.

If someone stole from [one of] five people and doesn't know which he stole from, and each says "he stole from me", he returns the theft to [escrow for] them and is done, says R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says, that's no way to keep him from sinning, unless he repays [the full] theft to each one.

According to R. Akiva, do we compel the person to avoid sinning (not eat t'ruma, pay the money), or do we merely advise him to in order to avoid sinning?

  • for the last case, the translation of דרך מוציאתו מידי עבירה is the same? – kouty Apr 28 '19 at 12:14
  • @kouty, why not? – msh210 Apr 28 '19 at 12:18
0

I think that Rabbi Akiva says that if we follow the way of Rabbi Tarfon there is an avera anyways, mima nafshach.

If the husband died:

The first wife will marry without sin.

The second wife eats teruma by sin.

If the husband is alive:

The first wife marry by sin,

The second wife eats teruma with sin.

So, the criticism of Rabbi Akiva is that the solution of Rabbi Tarfon leads to an unavoidable sin. And to take the responsibility to lead to a sin is not acceptable for RA. Not that if Rabbi Tarfon didn't say his rule, they will not make any Avera.

See Tosfot 118a, Tosfot has a tendency to understand that the Mishna told about teruma derabanan because it seems to him strange that rabbi Tarfon would allow Avera deorayta mima nafshach. By this Tosfot I want just to illustrate that for Rabbi Tarfon himself Tosfot cannot easily understand his solution if it leads to an avera of Tora mima nafshach.

בת ישראל לכהן תאכל בתרומה. מספקא לר"י אי דוקא בתרומה דרבנן אי נמי בתרומה דאורייתא דאוקמה אחזקה דדייקא ומינסבא ועל צרתה אין להאמינה ואוקמה אחזקת אשת איש מידי דהוה אשני שבילין. מיהו איכא הכא חדא דעביד איסורא ממ"נ ובכי האי גוונא לא ילפינן מסוטה כדמשמע בריש מסכת נדה (דף ב: ושם) ובמס' חולין (דף ט: ושם): ‏

A similar case is in Shevuot 7.5 when Ben Nanas says

אמר בן ננס, אלו ואלו באים לידי שבועת שוא

In the second part of the Mishna (cases 3 and 4) regarding paying procedures (money), the statement of Rabbi Akiva has an other context. First a man did a sin (he was not carful enough) and want to repair it, to go away from his sin. Rabbi Akiva is stringent and give his way to be sure he repaired his sin. It's a different svaraת for this second part, we rules as Rabbi Akiva, for the first part, we rule as Rabbi Tarfon, there are two distinct machloktot, two distinct topics. But Rabbi Akiva says that we cannot say him that this way is for him the way of atonement.

|improve this answer|||||
  • I don't see how this answers the question asked. – msh210 Apr 28 '19 at 23:30
  • We don't force someone to avoid the Derech avera, we avoid to push him to make avera. This is for the first two cases. For the second two cases, he needs a Derech of Kapara, we cannot indicate a wrong Derech, because he indicated to himself the confused situation – kouty Apr 29 '19 at 1:02
  • For Rabbi Tarfon we give them an ok that leads to sin. They cannot without this ok. Moreover the global ok contains NECESSARILY a sin – kouty Apr 29 '19 at 1:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .