The tosfos shantz 25a is mechadesh that 'stira' can be achieved even without an issur yichud. For example if he goes into a private area that has a door open to reshus harabim, and also having her husband present in the city qualifies as stira but it is not yichud. Similarly, rambam writes that stira with 2 men at the same time and even with relatives that yichud is permitted with would qualify as stira.
i have a very strong proof that yichud can be accomplished without an issur yichud. According to r' yishmael that if she is found to be tahor by the water she will be zocheh to children, the gemara says in brachos31b that chana threatened hashem that if she doesn't have a child she will behave in a way where elkana will give her kinuy and she will have stira, drink the water and be found innocent to be zocheh to the bracha. ho could a tzadekes like ghana put herself in a situation where sheould violate an issur yichud. Clearly, it must be possible to accomplish stira without an issur yichud and that is what chana was threatening to do.
5 comments:
there is a more obvious proof - you can have kinuy and setirah for the girls father, where there is no issur yichud!
that is a proof from rashi on the mishna who lists her father among the arayos that kinuy helps for. that is really what i quoted from the rambam. i think a better simplr proof wold be from stira with a goy 26b even though yichud is only drabonon as the 18 gezeiros of beis shamai and hillel (avoda zara 26b). nonetheless, yichud with a relative is technically yichud just that with some (father and brother) chazal weren't concrned for biah, so it is misaver that if the husband is concerned by giving kinuy it will qualify as stira. this will still not prove that stira can apply without a real yichud. however, by chana it is unlikely that she would of made her husband suspucious about yichud with her father, rather it would be with another man. therefore it will prove that it takes lessto qualify as stira than as yichud like the tosafos shantz.
I think R'Akiva makes the statement you attributed the R'Yishmael and R'Yishmael argues and says if so, all barren women would do this and the tzanua woman would lose out.
sorry i guess i got it backwards.
to further challenge theproof fom arayos, i ust found that the cheshek shlomo quotes from shiyarei korban that when the gemara asks what is the chiddush of being able to give kinuy to arayos and doesn't answer that the chiddush is to include even arayos that are mutar in yichud, implies that our gemar holds that kinuy and stira only apply when there is an issur yichud (but r' shlomo vilna himself disagrees with the diyuk).
Post a Comment