Previous Daf

YEVAMOS 35

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) Rav Gidal Amar Rav reconciles Shmuel (who says that we decree a Ketanah - forbidding her to marry for three months after a Bi'as Zenus) with our Mishnah, which says 'Im Hayu Ketanos she'Einan Re'uyos Leiled, Machzirin Osan Miyad' - by establishing our Mishnah as a Hora'as Sha'ah (a ruling that applies only to the case of the Mishnah), because it is uncommon to switch wives during the Chupah.
(b) This does not mean that this case actually happened - but that they ruled there leniently, as if it had.
(c) We know that it did not happen - because if it had, the Mishnah would have said (not 'Shenayim she'Kidshu', but) 'Ma'aseh u'Kidshu Shenayim ... '.

click for question
2)
(a) According to the second Lashon in Shmuel - the Tana is referring to a Giyores and Meshuchreres who are Gedolos (but all Ketanos are permitted to return to their husbands immediately).
(b) Here too - Shmuel is speaking about Zenus, but not about Mi'un or a Get (as we explained in the first Lashon).
(c) According to Shmuel, Chazal did not decree on a Giyores and Meshuchreres who are Gedolos, despite the fact that Zenus by them is common - because he holds like Rebbi Yosi (whom we will discuss shortly).
(d) According to Rebbi ...
1. ... Yehudah - (even) a Giyores, a Shevuyah (a captive who has been set free) and a Meshuchreres - must wait three months before marrying.
2. ... Yosi - Chazal did not decree waiting three months after a Bi'as Zenus at all.

click for question
3)
(a) Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yosi - by the three cases mentioned in the Beraisa ('Giyores, Shifchah and Shevuyah', where even when they are married they need to protect themselves before converting); but he does not rule like him - by an ordinary Yisraelis who committed Zenus, on whom he decrees on account of a married one (who has no reason to protect herself).
(b) Rabah initially ascribes Rebbi Yosi's lenient viewpoint - to the fact that before a woman commits adultery, she protects herself by having a cloth handy, which she either wears during the act or uses afterwards to wipe away the Zera (see Rashi and Tosfos 11b).
(c) Abaye queries Rabah from one case of Meshuchreres. We can readily accept Rabah's reason with regard to ...
1. ... Giyores - who is anticipating converting, and who needs to draw a distinction between a conception that took place before the conversion and one that takes place after it.
2. ... Shevuyah and Shifchah - who overheard the captors or her master discussing her freedom.
(d) The case of Shifchah that is problematic however - is where she goes free because her master knocked out her eye or her tooth, which she could hardly have anticipated this.
(e) Abaye therefore ascribes Rebbi Yosi's leniency by Zenus to the fact that - a woman who commits Zenus generally turns over after Bi'ah, in order to destroy the Zera, to avoid becoming pregnant.

click for question
4)
(a) The problem with our Mishnah, which says 'v'Im Hayu Kohanos, Nifselu min ha'Terumah' is - that, seeing as we are talking about becoming Pasul from eating Terumah, the woman must be the wife of a Kohen, in which case, why should she need to be a Kohenes (the daughter of a Kohen), since the same will apply to the daughter of a Yisre'eilis?!
(b) We try to amend the Mishnah to read 'v'Im Hayu Neshei Kohanim ... ', but refute this answer on the basis of Rav Amram quoting Rav Sheshes, who says - that even the wife of a Yisrael becomes disqualified from marrying a Kohen through a Bi'as Ones should her husband die! (So why confine the Din to the wife of a Kohen?)
(c) Rava therefore amends our Mishnah to read that - if they were Kohanos who were married to a Yisrael, they would become Pasul from the Terumah of their father's house, should their husband die.

click for question
5)
(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case where, after the Yavam performs Chalitzah, the Yevamah is found to be pregnant, and subsequently gives birth. The Tana rules that, should she give birth to ...
1. ... a healthy baby - they will be permitted to marry each other's relatives, and she, to marry a Kohen.
2. ... a still-born baby - then they will be forbidden to marry each other's relatives and she, to marry a Kohen.
(b) If, instead of Chalitzah, he performs Yibum with her and she then gives birth ...
1. ... to a healthy baby - he will be obligated to send her away, and they will be obligated to bring a Korban Chatas.
2. ... to a still-born baby - he will be permitted to retain her and they will not be required to bring a Chatas.

click for question
6)
(a) Rebbi Yochanan exempts a pregnant Yevamah, with whom one of the brothers performed Chalitzah, and who subsequently loses her baby, from having to perform Chalitzah with the remaining brothers. Resh Lakish disagrees.
(b) The same Machlokes will apply - to a Yevamah with whom the Yavam performed Yibum under similar circumstances.
(c) The logical basis of their Machlokes is - that according to Rebbi Yochanan, if Eliyahu were to come and inform us that the baby would be a still-born, would she not be subject to Chalitzah or Yibum immediately? So why should it be any different, if they actually performed Chalitzah or Yibum, and the baby subsequently turned out to be a still-born? Whereas Resh Lakish maintains that Chalitzah and Yibum cannot work retroactively.
(d) They also learn their respective views from the Pasuk "u'Vein Ein Lo" however - which Rebbi Yochanan explains to mean that if the deceased brother has no son, they may perform Yibum or Chalitzah; whereas Resh Lakish Darshens "Ein Lo" 'Ayein Alav' ('Examine him' to see whether the Yevamah is not pregnant; if she is, then Yibum is forbidden).

click for question
7)
(a) Resh Lakish explains that our Mishnah, which states that if, after the Chalitzah, the Yevamah gives birth to a still-born baby, both the Yavam and the Yevamah are forbidden to marry each other's relatives and the Yevamah is Pasul from marrying a Kohen - speaks mi'de'Rabanan, because mid'Oraisa, the Chalitzah is ineffective.
(b) Alternatively, it is Resh Lakish, who asks why, according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana says 'Paslah min ha'Kehunah' (l'Chumra, and not 'Einah Tzerichah Chalitzah min ha'Achim', l'Kula), seeing as, in the latter's opinion, the Chalitzah is valid. Rebbi Yochanan replies - that the Tana says 'Paslah min ha'Kehunah' to counter 'Lo Paslah min ha'Kehunah' in the Reisha (where the baby lives, and where it could not have written 'u'Tzerichah Chalitzah ... '). Otherwise, the Tana would have said 'Einah Tzerichah Chalitzah min ha'Achim'.

click for question
8)
(a) Resh Lakish, for his part, explains that the Mishnah which says that if the Yavam performed Yibum with the Yevamah and the baby turned out to be a still-born child, he may retain her - means that he retains her by means of a fresh Bi'ah (seeing as the original Bi'ah, according to him, is not valid).
(b) 'd'Lo Sagi b'Lav Hachi' means - that 'Yekayem' does not mean that he is permitted to retain her (as we thought until now), but that he is obligated to do so; otherwise, she is forbidden both to him and to the Shuk, since he can neither make Chalitzah, nor give her a Get (unless he acquires her with a proper Bi'ah).
(c) Alternatively, it is Resh Lakish who asks why, according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana says 'Yekayem' and not 'Ratzah Yotzi, Ratzah Yekayem'. Rebbi Yochanan explains here too - that the Tana says 'Yekayem', only in order to counter the Reisha where he says 'Yotzi'. Otherwise, he would have said 'Ratzah Yotzi, Ratzah Yekayem'.

click for question
9)
(a) The Beraisa forbids the Tzarah of a Yevamah who performs Yibum and then discovers that she is pregnant, to marry l'Shuk, 'in case the baby turns out to be one that lives'; an obvious mistake, because, if anything, the baby living is a reason to permit her to marry (and not to forbid it). We emend the Beraisa to read 'in case the baby turns out to be one that does not live'.
(b) This turns the Beraisa into a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - inasmuch as if the Yibum of a pregnant Yevamah is considered valid (retroactively), then why should the Tzarah not get married?
(c) We then try to emend the wording of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - to read that, as far as Bi'ah is concerned, even Rebbi Yochanan agrees that the Bi'ah of a pregnant woman is not valid, and it is only by Chalitzah that they argue.
(d) Rav rejects this emendation however - on the grounds that, if the Bi'ah is not a Bi'ah, then the Chalitzah is not a Chalitzah either, seeing as we have learned that any Yevamah who is subject to Yibum is subject to Chalitzah, whereas one who is not subject to Yibum, is not subject to Chalitzah either.

click for question
10)
(a) Rava therefore emends the Beraisa - to read that the Tzarah of a Yevamah who performs Yibum and then discovers that she is pregnant, is forbidden to marry l'Shuk, 'in case the baby turns out to be one that lives', in which case, the Yibum is invalid (to which everyone agrees), and even the baby does not exempt from Yibum or Chalitzah retroactively, only from the time that it is born.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan will agree with this (even though he holds the Bi'ah of a Me'uberes is valid) - because his argument is based on the fact that, if Eliyahu were to reveal that the baby will die, the Yibum and the Chalitzah would be valid ... , and the reason that the Tzarah is forbidden to get married is that the baby might live.
(c) We know that Rava's explanation is authoritative - because he is supported by a Beraisa.

Next Daf