ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
________________________________________________________________
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
YEVAMOS 26 (12 Sivan) - Dedicated by Rabbi and Mrs. Mordecai Kornfeld in honor of the Bar Mitzvah of their son, Yisrael Kornfeld
YEVAMOS 27 - Dedicated by Andy and Nancy Neff in honor of the Bar Mitzvah of their son, Philip Moshe (Ephraim Moshe Ben Avraham Yosef) Neff, which was celebrated recently at the Kotel ha'Ma'aravi.
YEVAMOS 30 (16 Sivan) - This Daf has been dedicated l'Zecher Nishmas Reb Avrohom ben Reb Shmuel Teichman by his son Mr. Shmuel Teichman, by Mrs. Leah Teichman, by Mrs. Tzipora Lieber, by Mrs. Amy Kornfeld and by Mr. Berish Teichman.
Ask now about our special "Book Week" prices
for Kollel Iyun Hadaf's past publications
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
YEVAMOS 26
1)
(a) Our Mishnah cites two sets of circumstances under which all the above prohibitions (Chacham, Meivi Get and Me'id) become permitted; one of them is if they were married at the time that they became involved with the woman, and their wives subsequently died - the other, if the woman first married someone else, who then divorced her or died.
(b) The women are permitted to marry the relatives of the men concerned.
(c) We can extrapolate from the fact that, in the earlier case, the Mishnah mentions specifically that 'their wives subsequently died' - that if they divorced them, they concession would not apply.
(d) We reconcile this with the Beraisa which permits it - by establishing the latter where they were already quarreling before the husband became involved with the second woman, so that there is no real basis for suspicion.
(e) Alternatively, we establish the Beraisa, even if they had not quarreled earlier - but where it was the wife who began the quarrel.
2)
(a) When the Tana says 'v'Chulan she'Nis'u la'Acherim, v'Nisgarshu O *she'Nis'almenu*, Mutaros li'Nasei Lahem', we think that Misah ('Nis'almenu') refers to the earlier case of 'Mes, Haragtiv ... ', and Gerushin to 'ha'Meivi Get' - in which case, the author of our Mishnah could not be Rebbi, who holds that, once a woman has lost two husbands, she has a Chazakah of being a 'Katlanis' (a woman who kills her husbands) and is not permitted to marry a third time.
(b) In order to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi - we reverse the cases, connecting Misah to the case of 'ha'Meivi Get', and Gerushin to that of 'Mes, Haragtiv ... '.
3)
(a) Our Mishnah permits a woman to marry the sons or the brothers of the suspected man, whereas the Mishnah in ha'Ishah Rabah forbids the suspected man to marry the mother or the daughter of the woman concerned - because women tended to socialize at home more than men did. Consequently, in our Mishnah, if the woman marries the son or the brother of the man with whom she had an affair, we are not afraid that she might meet the man himself when he comes to visit his relative, whereas we are afraid that the man might meet with the woman in the house of her mother or daughter.
(b) The reason that the Tana mentions specifically the man's son or brother - is (not to preclude his father but) to teach us that even they are permitted (and most certainly, the man's father, whose son will be too embarrassed to misbehave in his father's house).
***** Hadran Alach, 'Keitzad Eishes Achiv' *****
***** Perek Arba'ah Achin *****
4)
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if two of four brothers marry two sisters and die, then the remaining brothers must perform Chalitzah and not Yibum. According to the Tana Kama, if they did perform Yibum, they must immediately divorce their Yevamos. According to Rebbi Eliezer - that is the opinion of Beis Hillel, but in the opinion of Beis Shamai, they may retain them.
(b) If one of the sisters is ...
1. ... an Ervah (e.g. a mother-in-law) to one of the brothers - then he is even permitted to perform Yibum with the other one, whilst the second brother is forbidden to both Yevamos.
2. ... a Sheniyah or a Chayvei Lavin - then he is obligated to perform Chalitzah but not Yibum.
(c) The reason for this difference is - because min ha'Torah, an Isur Ervah does not fall to Yibum at all (so the Tzarah is not a Tzaras Ervah), whereas Chayvei Lavin do (making the Tzarah a Tzaras Chayvei Lavin).
(d) They said 'Achosah k'she'Hi Yevimtah, O Choletzes O Misyabemes' - in a case when each sister is an Ervah to one of the brothers.
5)
(a) Considering the two sisters who fall to the two brothers fall from two houses, we initially contend that the Tana of our Mishnah must hold 'Yesh Zikah' - enabling the Yavam to nullify her Nedarim, and to forbid her relatives on him (besides the Din being discussed in our Mishnah).
(b) We refute the proof that 'Yesh Zikah' - by giving the reason for prohibiting Yibum on the Yevamah's sister as 'Asur l'Vatel Mitzvas Yibum' (in case the second brother dies before he has managed to perform Yibum or Chalitzah with the second sister (as we discussed earlier in the Perek).
(c) And the Tana speaks specifically of four brothers, and not three, where the Yibum will certainly be nullified - precisely because it is there (where there are three), where he will definitely negate the Mitzvah of Yibum with one of the sisters should he perform Yibum with the other one, it is obvious that he should perform Chalitzah (in order to be able to perform Chalitzah with her sister); whereas here (where there are four), the Tana needs to inform us that, although it is only a Safek, we still decree.
(d) This would not be a problem if the Tana's reason was 'Yesh Zikah (even when there are two brothers)' -because then the Chidush would be that even when there are two brothers, neither of them may perform Yibum, because of Achos Zekukaso (and we do not say that it will later transpire retroactively that the Zikah of each Yevamah was specifically designated for the Yavam who performed Yibum with her ['Bereirah']), how much more so when there is only one brother.
(e) The Tana specifically states the Din of two sisters when there are four brothers, as we just explained - but in a case of five brothers, two of the remaining three brothers will be permitted to perform Yibum, because we do not contend with the probability of two brothers dying.
26b--------------------------------------26b
6)
(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna quoting Rav rules that, if three sisters fall before two brothers for Yibum - each brother performs Chalitzah with one of the sisters, following which both brothers perform Chalitzah with the 'middle' one.
(b) Rabah extrapolates from Rav's ruling that he holds - that a. the Zikah extends to both Yevamin, and b. that she needs Chalitzah from both brothers because the subsequent Chalitzah is a weak one ...
(c) ... this in turn - because neither brother is permitted to perform Yibum, because she is Achos Chalutzaso.
7)
(a) And the reason that this ruling is confined to the 'middle' sister is - because the Tana is speaking when the sisters fell one at a time.
(b) If all three sisters fell at the same time - both brothers would be required to perform Chalitzah with each of the sisters.
(c) We reconcile all this with the fact that Rav himself holds 'Ein Zikah' - by establishing the current ruling as being (not his own, but) the opinion of those who hold 'Yesh Zikah'.
8)
(a) Shmuel disagrees with Rav's current ruling. In the case where three sisters fall before two brothers for Yibum - he permits one of the brothers to perform Chalitzah with all the sisters.
(b) We query Shmuel however, from another statement of his, where he rules in a case where two sisters who were married to two brothers, and who fell before the third brother for Yibum, each one together with a Tzarah - that if the brother performed Chalitzah with ...
1. ... the sisters - the Tzaros still require Chalitzah.
2. ... the Tzaros - the sisters are Patur.
(c) This is because - the Isur on the sisters (who are Achos Zekukos) is stronger than that on the Tzaros, and it is preferable to perform Chalitzah on the Yevamah whose Isur is the weakest.
(d) This appears to contradict Shmuel's current ruling - inasmuch as, seeing as he goes for the smallest Isur, he ought to have followed the ruling of Rav, requiring each Yavam to perform Chalitzah with one of the sisters ..., rather than allowing one Yavam to perform all three!
9)
(a) We reconcile Shmuel's two statements - by explaining 'v'Chulan' of Shmuel to refer to the 'middle' Yevamah only.
(b) And he disagrees with Rav - inasmuch as according to him, only one of the brothers needs to perform Chalitzah on the 'middle' sister.
(c) He nevertheless said 'l'Chulan' - because, at the end of the day, the Yavam who performs Chalitzah with her, has performed Chalitzah with two of the three Yevamos (the majority).
(d) Alternatively - Shmuel only forbids freeing the Tzaros (whose Isur is weaker than that of the sisters) through the Chalitzah of the sisters, but when it is a matter of releasing the sisters, the Chalitzah on one can exempt the other.
________________________________________________________________
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
________________________________________________________________
YEVAMOS 27
1)
(a) We learned earlier that, according to Shmuel, if the Yavam performed Chalitzah with the sisters, the Tzaros still require Chalitzah, whereas, the sisters are free to marry l'Shuk with the Chalitzah of the Tzaros. He also discusses a case where two women fall to Yibum from the same husband, and the Yavam gives a Get or performs Ma'amar - (Kidushin that the Rabanan required a Yavam to make with the Yevamah prior to performing Yibum) with one of them.
(b) Should he now perform Chalitzah with ...
1. ... the Ba'alas ha'Get or the Ba'alas Ma'amar - the Tzarah will still require Chalitzah.
2. ... the Tzarah - the Ba'alas ha'Get or the Ba'alas Ma'amar do not require Chalitzah.
2)
(a) We now query Shmuel's initial ruling. Why is it, we ask, that if the Yavam performed Chalitzah with the sisters, the Tzaros still require Chalitzah, whereas, the sisters are free to marry l'Shuk with the Chalitzah of the Tzaros? The problem is - that just as in the Reisha, the sisters cannot exempt the Tzaros because they are Achos Ishah b'Zikah (who cannot perform Yibum), so too, in the Seifa, the Tzaros ought not to exempt the sisters because they are Tzaros Achos Ishah b'Zikah (who cannot perform Yibum either)!
(b) And we solve it - by pointing out that Shmuel holds 'Ein Zikah'.
(c) Shmuel does indeed hold 'Yesh Zikah' (as we learned earlier in the Perek). His current ruling however - goes according to those who hold 'Ein Zikah'.
3)
(a) When Shmuel says 'Chalatz l'Achyos, Lo Nifteru Tzaros' - he is referring exclusively to the Tzarah of the second sister (whose Chalitzah was a weak one, because she was Achos Chalutzaso) but not to the first (as we explained).
(b) And he says 'Tzaros' (in the plural) - because he is referring to 'Tzaros d'Alma' (general Tzaros), but only of the second sister.
4)
(a) Since 'Chalatz l'Achyos, Lo Nifteru Tzaros' refers exclusively to the Chalitzah of the second sister's Tzarah - then 'Chalatz l'Tzaros, Nifteru ' Achyos, must also refer to the Tzarah of the second sister. But how can that be, we ask - seeing as the Mishnah in ha'Choletz prohibits a Yavam from marrying the Tzarah of his Chalutzah's relative (even if that relative would not be his brother's wife)?
(b) So we emend Shmuel's statement to read (instead of 'Chalatz l'Achyos ... ') 'Hischil b'Achyos, Lo Yigmor b'Tzaros, Hischil b'Tzaros, Yigmor b'Achyos'.
(c) If the Yavam began by making Chalitzah with the Tzarah of the first sister, he may then go on to make Chalitzah (or even Yibum - according to those who hold 'Ein Zikah') with the second sister, even to the point of permitting her Tzarah to marry l'Shuk - because a Yavam is permitted to marry the relative of his Chalutzah's Tzarah.
5)
(a) Rav Ashi simplifies Shmuel, taking him literally and according to his own opinion (of 'Yesh Zikah'). He dispenses with our initial Kashya, permitting the sisters to marry l'Shuk with the Chalitzah of the Tzaros (despite the fact that the Tzaros are Tzaros Achos Ishah b'Zikah) - due to the fact that the Zikah is mid'Rabanan, and is not strong enough to make the Tzarah like the Ervah herself. Consequently, the Chalitzah of either of the Tzaros is better than that of the sisters.
(b) We try to substantiate Rav Ashi's explanation by quoting a Beraisa which teaches, by implication, that if the Yavam performed Chalitzah with the Tzaros, the sisters will be free to marry l'Shuk. But we reject this proof - by establishing the Beraisa like Beis Shamai, who permit the Tzaros to the brothers anyway.
(c) And the reason that the Tana permits only Chalitzah and not Yibum is - because he holds like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who instituted that the Tzaros should perform Chalitzah and not Yibum.
(d) We did indeed learn in the first Perek, that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's plans did not materialize, says Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - but that was then. Later however, they were accepted.
27b--------------------------------------27b
6)
The consequences of a Yavam giving a Get to his Yevamah are - a. that neither he nor any of the other brothers, is permitted to perform Yibum with any of the Yevamos; b. that the Yavam who gave it is obligated to perform Chalitzah with the Yevamah to whom he gave the Get, and c. that in addition, he becomes forbidden to marry her relatives.
7)
(a) We ask, according to Shmuel, what the Din will be if the Yavam gave a Get to one of two Yevamos, and made Ma'amar with the other. It might be preferable to perform Chalitzah with ...
1. ... the Ba'alas ha'Get - because having begun to send her away, it is better to finish the process.
2. ... the Ba'alas Ma'amar - because she is closer to Bi'ah (and is therefore more of a Yevamah, so to speak).
(b) Rav Ashi resolves the She'eilah from the Mishnah in Perek Raban Gamliel, where Raban Gamliel says 'Ein Get Achar Get' - meaning that the Get that he gave to the one Yevamah (after having given one to one of the other Yevamos), does not have the effect of forbidding him to marry her relatives.
(c) He concedes however - that 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Get, v'Yesh Get Achar Ma'amar.
(d) Rav Ashi resolves our She'eilah from there - because it is clear from the Beraisa that Ma'amar and Get are equal. Otherwise, the one that was weaker would not be effective after the one that was stronger.
8)
(a) Rav Huna Amar Rav rules that if two sisters fall to Yibum and ...
1. ... the first one dies - the Yavam may perform Yibum with the second one (even though she has not been permitted to the Yavam previously).
2. ... the second one dies - the Yavam may certainly perform Yibum with the first one (who has already been permitted before the second one fell to Yibum).
(b) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees - with Rav's first ruling, because, in his opinion, any Yevamah who is not permitted to perform Yibum when she falls to Yibum, is considered to be like an Eishes Ach who has children and is forbidden to the Yavam forever.
(c) Rav agrees with Rebbi Yochanan's principle - when the Isur is an Ervah d'Oraisa (such as Achos Ishah), but not in our case, where the two sisters fell from two houses and are forbidden only because of Zikah (which is only d'Rabanan).
9)
(a) The problem that Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina has with Rebbi Yochanan's ruling from our Mishnah is - why the latter obligates the two remaining brothers to perform specifically Chalitzah with the two sisters who fall to them for Yibum? Why should one of the brothers not be permitted to perform Yibum with the sister who fell first, seeing as she was permitted before becoming Asur, and then, once the second brother makes Chalitzah with her sister, she becomes permitted again?
(b) Rebbi Yochanan therefore declares - that he has no idea who the author of our Mishnah is (meaning that it must have been learned erroneously.
(c) He does not answer that it is only the second sister who must perform Chalitzah (whereas the first may perform Yibum), and that when the Tana says Choltzos, he refers to the general public ('Choltzos d'Alma'), as we learned earlier - because the Mishnah says 'Harei Eilu Choltzos', implying that both Yevamos in our Mishnah require Chalitzah.
(d) Neither does he answer that our Mishnah speaks when the one brother had already performed Chalitzah with the first Yevamah (b'Di'eved) - because 'Choltzos' implies that that this is what one must do l'Chatchilah, and not b'.Di'Eved.
________________________________________________________________
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
________________________________________________________________
YEVAMOS 28
1)
(a) We just learned that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, our Mishnah, which requires both brothers to perform Chalitzah with the two sisters who fell to Yibum, must be a mistake (because one of the brothers should later be permitted to make Yibum with the first sister that fell). He declines to answer that it is ...
1. ... a decree in case he first makes Chalitzah with the *first* Yevamah, and Yibum with the second - because the Mishnah says 'v'Lo Misyabemes', implying that there is no Din Yibum at all (even if he made Chalitzah with the second one).
2. ... because really the Tana holds 'Ein Zikah', and he decreed in all cases of two sisters who fall to two brothers, whenever one of them requires Chalitzah and the other, Yibum (requiring Chalitzah with both, in case one comes to perform Yibum first, and the other brother dies, causing the Mitzvah of Yibum to become negated) - because Rebbi Yochanan does not contend with the possibility of the Yavam dying.
(b) Nor does he want to answer that the Tana of our Mishnah is ...
1. ... Rebbi Elazar, who holds that any Yevamah who was forbidden even for one hour, remains forbidden forever - because, seeing as the Seifa of the Mishnah goes like Rebbi Elazar, one assumes that the Reisha does not.
2. ... Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili, who maintains that two twin events can occur simultaneously, and our Mishnah speaks when both brothers died (and both sisters fell to Yibum) at the same time, in which case neither of them was permitted when they fell - because we do not find a Stam Mishnah that goes like Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili.
(c) Nor can our Mishnah be speaking when they simply do not know which sister fell first, which is why neither Yavam may perform Yibum - because then, why would the Tana conclude 'Kadmu v'Kansu, Yotzi'u'? Why should the second Yavam not be permitted to retain his Yevamah, seeing as (unlike his brother, who definitely married b'Isur, before the Zikah had been removed from the sister) he married his Yevamah after the Zikah had been removed from the sister. Consequently, he should be able to remain with her, because nobody can prove that he married her b'Isur.
2)
We learned in our Mishnah that if one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers with an Isur Ervah (e.g. Chamoso), then he is permitted to perform Yibum with the second one; whereas the second brother is forbidden to make Yibum with either sister. Rav Papa establishes the Mishnah when the sister who is not his mother-in-law fell to Yibum first - because otherwise, why should the Yavam whose mother-in-law fell to Yibum first, not perform Yibum with the second Yevamah, thereby removing the Zikah, and permitting his brother to perform Yibum with her sister, who was permitted when she fell and now became permitted again with the Yibum of her sister?
3)
(a) Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa maintains (like he does in our Mishnah) that Beis Hillel hold 'Im Kansu Yotzi'u', and Beis Shamai, 'Yekaymu'. Aba Shaul reverses the opinions. Rebbi Shimon holds 'Im Kansu, Yekaymu'. He is coming to teach us - that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel do not argue at all, and that this is their joint opinion.
(b) We already learned above in a Mishnah in Perek Keitzad that, when two sisters fall to one Yavam, 'Achosah k'she'Hi Yevemtah, O Choletzes O Misyabemes'. The Tana sees fit to repeat it ...
1. ... here in our Mishnah - because we might otherwise have thought that here, where there is a brother who is forbidden to make Yibum, we might decree on the one who is permitted, in case his brother also decides to follow suite and do likewise.
2. ... there, having learned it here - because here at least there is another brother who is forbidden to perform Yibum, which will serve to remind us that Achos Zekukaso is forbidden; whereas in the first case, where there is no brother, we would otherwise have forbidden Yibum, in case people come to permit Achos Zekukaso.
(c) We also learned there 'Isur Mitzvah v'Isur Kedushah Choletzes v'Lo Misyabemes'. The Tana sees fit to repeat it here - because here, where she is also Achos Zekukaso, perhaps we will place the Isur Mitzvah together with the Isur Ervah, removing the name of Achos Zekukaso, and permit the Yavam to make Yibum with her sister.
(d) Despite the fact that min ha'Torah, an Isur Mitzvah falls to Yibum, we would nevertheless have thought that, when she is Achos Chalutzaso as well, he may perform Yibum with her sister - because since Zikah is only mid'Rabanan, the Rabanan may well have removed it, if there is an Isur Mitzvah or Kedushah in addition to that of Achos Zekukaso, in order to enable the Mitzvah of Yibum to be fulfilled.
28b--------------------------------------28b
4)
The Tana already taught us in the Reisha that if one of the Yevamos is an Ervah to the Yavam, then he is permitted to perform Yibum with her Tzarah. Having taught it ...
1. ... there, the Tana nevertheless needs to inform us that the same will apply here (when two sisters fall to two brothers, each of whom is an Ervah to one of them) - because here, we might have forbidden Yibum, on the grounds that people will otherwise think that Achos Zekukaso is permitted; whereas in the Reisha, the fact that one of the brothers is forbidden will remind us that it is not.
2. ... here (when there are two Yevamin), he nevertheless needs to repeat there (when there is only one) - because we would otherwise have thought that it is here, where each brother is forbidden to one of the sisters, that we are not afraid that they will perform Yibum with the forbidden sister; whereas there, where one of the brothers is forbidden to both sisters, we would have forbidden Yibum, in case he comes to think that he too, like his brother, is permitted to perform Yibum with one of the sisters.
5)
(a) When the Tana writes '*v'Zu Hi she'Amru*, Achosah k'she'Hi Yevemtah O Choletzes O Misyabemes' - he means to preclude a case where each sister is also an Isur Mitzvah or Kedushah on one of the brothers, in which case Yibum is forbidden.
(b) The Tana needs to repeat this in the case when each of the sisters is also an Isur Mitzvah on one of the two Yevamin, even though he has already taught it to us when one of them is - because we would have thought that it is when only one of them is an Isur Mitzvah or Kedushah and not the other, that Chazal did not combine the Isur Mitzvah or Kedushah with the Isur Ervah to remove the Zikah (in order to perform the Mitzvah of Yibum), in order to decree on the one brother because of the other; whereas when both sisters are an Isur Mitzvah or Kedushah on one of the brothers, there would be nothing to decree.
6)
(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa, ha'Asurah la'Zeh Muteres la'Zeh ... ' applies to all of the fifteen Arayos listed at the beginning of the Masechta (as we already learned in the first Perek). Rav Yehudah himself disagrees. In his opinion, it only applies to the cases from Chamoso and onwards, but not to the first six cases connected with 'Bito' - because it is only possible to find such a case through rape (when two brothers raped the same woman, each one of whom then gave birth to a daughter, who became married to a second set of brothers, who then died). It will not apply to a case of marriage, because it is not possible for one brother to marry the wife of his brother who had a daughter.
(b) Abaye agrees with the first opinion, because since the case is possible, who cares whether it is through marriage or through rape? He does not however, agree that Rebbi Chiya's principle applies by Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo - because such a case is only possible according to Rebbi Shimon (who permits an Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo if the brother had already made Yibum with her before he was born), but not according to the Rabanan, and our Tana does not get involved in Machlokes.
(c) The case, according to Rebbi Shimon, is when Reuven and Shimon married two sisters, whilst Levi and Yehudah were married to two non-related women. Reuven dies, Yisachar is born and Levi performs Yibum. Shimon then dies, Zevulun is born and Yehudah performs Yibum with Shimon's wife. Then Levi and Yehudah die and fall to Yibum before Yisachar and Zevulun (The wife of Reuven is forbidden to Yisachar but permitted to Zevulun, whereas the wife of Shimon is permitted to Yisachar and forbidden to Zevulun).
(d) When spelling out the case, it is necessary to mention that Yehudah, the fourth brother, performed Yibum, despite the fact that the Yevamah would be permitted to Zevulun the fifth brother even if he had not done so - in order to fit in the case of 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh, Muteres la'Zeh' by the Tzarah as well.
7)
We will fit in the case of 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh, Muteres la'Zeh' by the Tzaras Tzarah - there where Gad and Asher performed Yibum with the wives of Levi and Yehudah (the Tzaros of Reuven and Shimon's wives respectively), and then died, leaving their wives (the Tzaros of the two Yevamos) to Yisachar and Zevulun: The wife of Gad (the Tzarah of Yehudah's Yevamah who fell from Shimon), is forbidden to Zevulun and permitted to Yisachar, whereas the wife of Asher is forbidden to Yisachar and permitted to Zevulun.
8)
(a) According to the Tana Kama, if two of three brothers marry two sisters, a woman and her daughter or a woman and her granddaughter, and subsequently die, the third brother must make Chalitzah and not Yibum. According to Rebbi Shimon, both women are Patur from Chalitzah too ...
(b) ... because of the Pasuk "v'Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tzror', which teaches us that two sisters ... who become Tzaros b'Zikah - are both forbidden to the Yavam.
(c) If one of the two sisters is ...
1. ... an Ervah to the Yavam - then she is forbidden to him, but he is permitted to perform Yibum with her sister.
2. ... an Isur Mitzvah or an Isur Kedushah - then both Yevamos require Chalitzah but not Yibum.
(d) We have already learned above that if one of the two sisters is an Ervah on one of the brothers, he is permitted to perform Yibum with the second sister. The Tana mentions it because of Rebbi Shimon - who says that the Isur of Achos Zekukaso is d'Oraisa. Consequently, he needs to inform us that we do not decree two sisters who are also Arayos, and require Yibum, to prevent people from thinking that Achos Zekukah is permitted.
________________________________________________________________
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
________________________________________________________________
YEVAMOS 29
1)
(a) Rebbi Shimon, who exempts the sister of a Zekukah from Yibum altogether, nevertheless requires the sister who is an Isur Mitzvah to one of the brothers, to receive Chalitzah from the other brother - because of a decree on account of a regular case of Isur Mitzvah.
(b) And he requires her sister (who is not an Isur Mitzvah) to perform Chalitzah too (not exempting her because she is Achos Zekukah) - on account of her.
(c) He do not make a similar decree by Isur Ervah (to require Chalitzah from the Ervah because of the Tzarah) - because everyone knows that the Ervah (who is not a Zekukah) does not require Chalitzah, and that her Tzarah is not Achos Zekukah, and requires Chalitzah.
2)
(a) Our Mishnah cites a case of two of Reuven and Shimon who married two sisters, Reuven died and Levi, who is unmarried, made Ma'amar with the Yevamah. According to Beis Shamai, should Shimon die, Levi remains with the Ba'alas Ma'amar, and the sister is free to marry l'Shuk - because Ma'amar is Koneh like marriage (see Sugya, Amud Beis), in which case Shimon's widow is forbidden to Levi because of Achos Ishto.
(b) Beis Hillel say - that, since each Yevamah is Achos Zekukaso, Levi is obligated to send away the Ba'alas Ma'amar with a Get and Chalitzah, and her sister with Chalitzah alone.
(c) Beis Hillel comment - that this is what Chazal meant when they said 'Woe to his wife and woe to his brother's wife'.
3)
(a) Beis Hillel preceded his last statement with the words 'Zu Hi she'Amru ... ', which comes to preclude a similar statement made by Rebbi Yehoshua in Perek Beis Shamai - with reference to two brothers who married two sisters, one, a Gedolah, the other, a Ketanah, and the husband of the Gedolah died.
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah holds either like ...
1. ... Rebbi Eliezer - who says that we teach the husband of the Ketanah to make Mi'un.
2. ... Raban Gamliel - who says that if she makes Mi'un of her own accord, well and good, but if not, we wait until she grows up, whereupon the Yevamah will be free to marry l'Shuk, because she is the Yavam's wife's sister.
(c) Rebbi Elazar explains that, in the opinion of Beis Shamai, Ma'amar does not effect a complete Kinyan. According to him ...
1. ... it is Koneh - with regard to pushing away the Tzarah (meaning that the latter does not forbid her because of Achos Zekukaso).
2. ... it is not Koneh - with regard to removing the Zikah from the Yevamah (to permit her to marry l'Shuk with a Get alone, without Chalitzah).
29b--------------------------------------29b
4)
(a) Rebbi Avin attempts to prove from the Mishnah at the beginning of the Perek 'Beis Shamai Omrim Yekaymu' (but not l'Chatchilah) that Ma'amar is not completely Koneh - because if it would be, let each Yavam first perform Ma'amar with one of the Yevamos, and then he will be able to perform Yibum with her!
(b) We counter however - that, even if Ma'amar was Koneh completely - each Yavam should be able to perform Ma'amar, to push away the Tzarah, and then Yibum.
(c) So we are forced to say that, that it is only a Ma'amar of Heter (where the Yavam has the option of performing Yibum [like in our Mishnah, when the brother performed Ma'amar before the Yevamah's sister fell to Yibum]) that acquires, but not one of Isur. And that also explains why the Mishnah says 'Beis Shamai Omrim Yekaymu' (b'Di'eved, but not l'Chatchilah).
5)
(a) According to Rav Ashi too, Beis Shamai, in the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, holds that Ma'amar is not completely Koneh. He quotes Rebbi Elazar as saying 'Do not think that Ma'amar is completely Docheh (the Tzarah), even to absolve the Tzarah from Chalitzah. It is Docheh her (from Yibum), but leaves a little over (to require Chalitzah)'.
(b) Once again, we cite Rav Avin's proof from Beis Shamai's 'Yekaymu' at the beginning of the Perek. We reconcile it with Beis Shamai's statement here ('Ishto Imo, v'Halezu Teitzei Mishum Achos Ishah', implying l'Chatchilah) - by pointing out that, whereas the latter speaks in a case when the Yavam had the option of performing Yibum, the former (which is a case of Achos Zekukaso) did not.
6)
(a) Rabah (or Rava) asks whether Ma'amar creates marriage or betrothal. Abaye proves that the ramifications of this She'eilah cannot concern inheritance, burial and the annulment of vows - from the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya, from which we learn that even Kidushin d'Oraisa does not acquire in these three regards, so it is unlikely that Ma'amar d'Rabanan, will.
(b) The Beraisa discusses the Halachic relationship between a man and his Arusah, starting with the Din of Aninus - based on the fact that an Onen is forbidden to eat Kodshim.
(c) The Tana rules, in the event ...
1. ...Arusah dies - that the Arus is not an Onen (and he is permitted to eat Kodshim).
2. ... Arus dies - the Arusah receives her Kesubah (provided the Arus gave her a Sh'tar Kesuvah at the engagement).
(d) When the Tana says ...
1. ... 'Lo Mitamei Lah', he means - that, if he is a Kohen, he is not permitted to bury her (see Tosfos DH 'Lo').
2. ... 'Lo Mitam'ah Lo', he means (besides that she is not obligated to bury him) - that on Yom Tov (when even Yisraelim [both men and women] are prohibited from becoming Tamei Mes) she is forbidden to bury him.
(e) The ramifications of Rabah's She'eilah are - with regard to Chupah; if Ma'amar creates Kidushin, then she will still require Chupah, otherwise not.
7)
(a) Abaye asks Rabah that if without Ma'amar, the Torah writes "Yevamah Yavo Alehah" - 'Afilu Ba'al Korchah', how much more so, with it (in which case, it seems obvious that Chupah ought not to be necessary). To which Rabah replied - that if Ma'amar creates Erusin, it means that it removes the Zikah of Yibum, creating in its place, a Zikah of Erusin.
(b) Abaye then cites the Beraisa (which discusses the rights of one or two Yevamin to annul the Nedarim of his betrothed) 'Shomeres Yavam, Bein Yavam Echad, Bein Shnei Yevamin, Rebbi Eliezer Omer, Yafer'; Rebbi Yehoshua Omer, l'Echad v'Lo li'Shenayim; Rebbi Akiva Omer, Lo l'Echad v'Lo li'Shenayim.' The reason of Rebbi ...
1. ... Akiva is - because he holds 'Ein Zikah Afilu l'Chad.
2. ... Yehoshua is - because he holds 'Yesh Zikah l'Chad, v'Lo li'Trei'.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer holds - 'Yesh Zikah, vaAfilu li'Shenayim'.
(d) To explain why Rebbi Eliezer's uses the singular ('Yafer') - Rebbi Ami - establishes the case where one of the Yevamim made Ma'amar, and the author of the Beraisa is Beis Shamai, who holds that Ma'amar is Koneh completely.
8)
(a) Abaye now tries to resolve Rabah's She'eilah from Rebbi Eliezer, based on a Mishnah in Nedarim - which requires both the father of an Arusah and the Arus to annul her Nedarim ...
(b) ... a proof that Ma'amar must create Nisu'in (and not Erusin).
(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects Abaye's proof - by establishing the Beraisa where the father did indeed annul the Arusah's Nedarim too.
9)
(a) Despite the fact that Rebbi Elazar holds in Perek Beis Shamai, that Ma'amar acquires only with regard to rejecting the Tzarah, but not with regard to exempting the Yevamah from Chalitzah - he agrees that, in every other respect, Ma'amar is fully Koneh according to Beis Shamai (including annuling her vows).
(b) Alternatively, Rebbi Elazar counters that, even if Beis Shamai holds that Ma'amar is completely Koneh, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak should not have established the case where the father annuled the Arusah's Nedarim too - because then Rebbi Eliezer ought to have said 'Lo Yaferu' (and not 'Lo Yafer').
10)
(a) So Rebbi Elazar establishes the case - where they went to Beis-Din, who obligated the Yavam to sustain the Yevamah out of his own pocket (as we will learn in Perek ha'Choletz), in which case he adopts the Din of a husband and is permitted to annul her vows on his own, even if Ma'amar creates Erusin.
(b) This is based on the principle of Rav Pinchas quoting Rava - that when a woman makes a Neder, it is on the assumption that her husband gives his consent.
(c) According to Rebbi Elazar, the Beraisa speaks even if the Yavam did not make Ma'amar, according to Rav Ami, it speaks when he made Ma'amar and refuses either to perform Yibum or Chalitzah with her (see also Tos. DH 'K'gon').
________________________________________________________________
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
________________________________________________________________
YEVAMOS 30
1)
(a) The Mishnah now discusses a case where Reuven and Shimon married sisters Rachel and Le'ah) and Levi, a stranger (Dinah), and Reuven dies. Should Levi die after performing ...
1. ... Yibum with Rachel - both Dinah and Rachel are free to marry l'Shuk (the latter because she is Shimon's wife's sister, the former because she is her Tzarah).
2. ... Ma'amar with her - Dinah requires Chalitzah, whereas Rachel is free to marry l'Shuk.
(b) We can extrapolate from the Mishnah that if Levi did not even make Ma'amar with Rachel - then Shimon may even perform Yibum with Dinah.
(c) Rav Nachman learns from this Mishnah - 'Ein Zikah Afilu l'Chad Acha' ...
(d) ... because otherwise, Dinah would be forbidden to Shimon (on account of Tzaras Achos Ishto b'Zikah) even if Levi had not even made Ma'amar with her.
2)
(a) Now the Mishnah discusses the above case, but where Levi died first. In the event that the latter died after having performed ...
1. ... Yibum with Dinah - both Dinah and Rachel are free to marry l'Shuk (the latter because she is his wife's sister, the former, because she is her Tzarah.
2. ... Ma'amar with her - then she requires Chalitzah, and Rachel is free to marry l'Shuk.
(b) In spite of the fact that the Ma'amar with his wife's sister forces the non-related wife to perform Chalitzah, and not Yibum (as we saw in the first Mishnah), the Tana repeats it in the second Mishnah, when it is the other way round (when he makes Ma'amar with the non-related wife, and it is his wife's sister who was married first) - because he really learned the latter Mishnah first, intending to permit the Tzarah in the earlier case. But then he changed his mind, deciding to forbid her too. He was so pleased with the Chidush however, that he learned it first.
(c) He did not scrap the second Mishnah, which is not teaching us anything new - because of the principle 'Mishnah Lo Zazah mi'M'komah' (The Tana'im opted to leave their Mishnayos intact).
3)
(a) Now the Mishnah discusses the same case as that in the first Mishnah (where Reuven and Shimon married sisters [Rachel and Le'ah] and Levi, a stranger [Dinah]), Reuven died and Levi performed Yibum with Rachel) only when Levi died after Le'ah. The Tana forbids Shimon to perform Yibum with Rachel - because, since she was once forbidden to him because of Achos Ishah (when Reuven died) she remains forbidden forever.
(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules that a Yevamah who is unable to perform Yibum when her husband dies - is like an Eishes Ach who has children (and will never become permitted).
(c) Even though we know this principle already from the Seifa of our Mishnah (' ... Ho'il v'Ne'esrah Sha'ah Achas'), we would have confined to to where she remains forbidden throughout the period of the first Nefilah - comes Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and teaches us that even if the source of the Isur falls way during that period, she becomes permitted.
(d) The Mishnah (later in the Perek) rules that, if Reuven and Shimon are married to two sisters, and first Reuven, and then Shimon's wife, die - Shimon is forbidden to perform Yibum with Reuven's wife, seeing as she was once forbidden to him ...
(e) ... in which case, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav is coming to add - that even when there is a second Yavam, who is able to perform Yibum with the Yevamah, she nevertheless remains forbidden to the Yavam to whom she was initially forbidden, forever.
4)
(a) The Mishnah now discusses a case where Reuven and Shimon are married to two sisters (Rachel and Le'ah), and Levi to a Nochris (Dinah). Reuven divorces Rachel, and Levi dies. In the event that Reuven performs Yibum with Levi's wife and dies - the Tana declares that this is the case about which Chazal said 've'Chulan she'Meisu O Nisgarshu, Tzaroseihen Mutaros', and Reuven is permitted to perform Yibum with Dinah.
(b) Rav Ashi extrapolates from the sequence of events in our Mishnah - that had Reuven divorced his wife only after Levi died, then Levi's wife would have been forbidden to Reuven ...
(c) ... a proof that this Tana holds - 'Yesh Zikah Afilu bi'Trei Achi'.
30b--------------------------------------30b
5)
(a) According to Rav Ashi, who just concluded that our Mishnah holds 'Yesh Zikah Afilu bi'Trei Achi', the Mishnah at the beginning of the Daf (from which Rav Nachman inferred [from the fact that the Tana requires Ma'amar on behalf of the Levi for the 'Nochris' to require Chalitzah from Shimon, and not Yibum] that 'Ein Zikah Afilu b'Chad Acha) inserts Ma'amar (not for the reason stated by Rav Nachman, but) - in order to preclude the opinion of Beis Shamai, who holds that Ma'amar is Koneh completely, in which case the 'Nochris' would not even require Chalitzah either.
(b) According to Rav Nachman (who holds 'Ein Zikah' and there is no difference whether Reuven divorced his wife first and then Levi died, or vice-versa) - the Tana says '*Zu Hi* she'Amru ... ' to preclude when Shimon actually performed Yibum with Levi's wife before divorcing his own, in which case, she is forbidden to Reuven (like Rebbi Yirmeyahu, in whose opinion this Tana holds 'Nisu'in ha'Rishonim Mapilim').
(c) To reconcile that with Rava, who explained (in the first Perek) that both Mishnahs hold 'Misah Mapeles' and that the sequence of the Mishnahs is 'Zu, v'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu'- we will have to establish Rav Nachman like Rebbi Yirmeyahu (who disagrees with Rava).
(d) And we are forced to say that Rava holds 'Yesh Zikah', like Rav Ashi - because since, in his opinion, both Mishnahs hold Misah Mapeles, our Tana cannot come to preclude when Reuven actually performed Yibum with Levi's wife before divorcing his own (like Rav Nachman), so it must come to preclude a case of when Reuven divorced his wife only after Levi died (from which Rav Ashi inferred above 'Yesh Zikah').
6)
(a) If the Ervah was a Safek Mekudeshes or a Safek Megureshes, says the Mishnah, the Tzarah requires Chalitzah and not Yibum. The case of Safek Kidushin is - where the man threw a document of Kidushin to a woman in the street and it landed exactly half-way at a distance of four Amos from each one.
(b) Safek Geirushin incorporates three cases: either her husband wrote her a hand-written Get without signed witnesses, or there were witnesses but the Get was undated - or the Get was dated, but was not written in the husband's handwriting and was signed by only one witness.
7)
(a) Rabah explains that the Tana does not explain Safek Megureshes in our Mishnah in the same way as Safek Mekudeshes ('Zarak Lah Gitah ... Safek Karov Lo Safek Karov Lei') - because in such a case, we would place the Tzarah on a Chezkas Heter l'Shuk (seeing as she was definitely a Tzaras Ervah, and a Safek would not remove that Chazakah).
(b) We do not apply the same principle to Safek Mekudeshes, and say that seeing as the Tzarah is b'Chezkas Heter l'Yavam, the Yavam is permitted to perform Yibum with her - because we go l'Chumra, and forbid Yibum.
(c) We initially think that this Chumra might lead to a Kula - because forbidding Yibum will lead us to presume that the Kidushin must have been effective. As a result, should he later betroth her sister, he will ignore the latter Kidushin and live with the first sister, or else someone else will betroth the first woman, and we will ignore that Kidushin, thinking that the first one's Kidushin was valid (whereas in fact, in both cases, both sets of Kidushin should be treated as a Safek Kidushin).
(d) The reason that we ignore the possible Kula, and apply the Chumra in spite of it, is - because the fact that he is required to perform Chalitzah will serve as a reminder that the Kidushin was not really valid and that she is only Safek Mekudeshes.
>>><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Write to us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Fax(US):(206) 202-0323; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004
_______________________________________________ daf-review mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.shemayisrael.com/mailman/listinfo/daf-review_shemayisrael.co.il
