POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Yevamos 55
YEVAMOS 51-55 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) THE PROHIBITION OF A WIFE'S SISTER
(a) Summation of question: We see from the Mishnah, his
wife's sister is forbidden, both paternal and maternal -
what is the source for this?
2) HA'ARA'AH IS CONSIDERED AS RELATIONS
(b) Answer #1: We learn from his sister; just as both
paternal and maternal sisters are forbidden, so too by
the sisters of one's wife.
1. Question: Why don't we learn from his uncle's wife,
that only the paternal sister is forbidden?
(c) Answer #2 Rather, we learn from his brother's wife, since
this prohibition is due to himself and comes through
2. Answer: It is more reasonable to learn from his
sister, since this prohibition is due to himself,
just as his wife's sister.
3. Objection: It is better to learn from his uncle's
wife, a prohibition that comes through engagement,
just as a wife's sister!
(d) Question: How do we know the law by a brother's wife?
(e) Answer (Beraisa): "Your brother's wife" - paternal or
1. Question: Perhaps, the prohibition should only be by
a paternal brother!
(f) Question: Perhaps only a paternal brother's wife is
forbidden - the extra verse is needed to teach, when he
has children, she is forbidden in the life of his brother
and after his death!
2. Suggestion #1: Just as by his sister, both paternal
and maternal sisters are forbidden - here, also!
3. Suggestion #2: Or perhaps, we should learn from his
father's brother's wife, only the paternal brother
i. Suggestion #1: It is better to learn from his
sister (his own relative) and not from his
uncle's wife, which is his father's relative.
ii. Suggestion #2: Perhaps, it is better to learn
from his uncle's wife, since this also comes
through engagement, and not from his sister!
iii. Therefore, it was needed to learn from "Your
(g) Answer: If he has children, after his death we already
know that she is forbidden - since the Torah permitted
Yibum when he has no children, we infer that when he has
children, she is forbidden!
(h) Suggestion #1: Perhaps when he has no children, she is
permitted to the Yavam and forbidden to all others; when
he has children, she is permitted to all!
1. Suggestion #2: Or, perhaps, when he has no children,
Yibum is a Mitzvah; when he has children, it is
(i) Rejection: To negate these possibilities, the Torah wrote
"The Ervah of his brother he revealed".
2. Suggestion #3: Or, perhaps, when he has no children,
Yibum is permitted; when he has children, it is
forbidden, and the prohibition is derived from a
Mitzvas Aseh and is only a Chayavei Ase!
(j) Suggestion: Perhaps a maternal brother's wife is as a
paternal brother's wife, and is permitted after death!
(k) Rejection: "She is" - she remains forbidden.
(l) Question: Why did the Torah write excision by a sister
(all Arayos are Chayavei Kerisus)?
(m) Answer: To teach as R. Yochanan.
1. (R. Yochanan): If he had relations with all the
Arayos, forgetting that they are forbidden, he
brings a sacrifice for each one.
(n) R. Yitzchak says that even though one is normally lashed
for Chayavei Lavin, Kares was written by one's sister to
teach that the punishment for Chayavei Kerisus is Kares
and not lashes.
1. Question: From where does R. Yitzchak learn R.
(o) Question: Why did the Torah write by an uncle's wife,
"They will be childless"?
2. Answer: From "To a Nidah in her impurity", teaching
that one is liable for each Ervah.
(p) Answer: As Rabah taught.
1. Contradiction (Rabah): It says, "They will be
childless"; another verse says "They will die
2. Answer (Rabah): If he has children (when he sinned),
he will bury them; if he had no children, he will
i. It was needed to write both.
ii. If the Torah only wrote "They will be
childless" - one would think, children he had
before sinning will die, but not children after
iii. If the Torah only wrote "They will die
childless" - one would think, he will not have
children after the sin - but children born
before sinning will not die!
(a) Question: How do we know that Ha'ara'ah is considered as
relations by Chayavei Lavin?
(b) Answer: By a Shicha Charufah (a female slave designated
to a male slave), the Torah punishes a man that that has
(relations fitting for) semen - implying, other Chayavei
Lavin are punishable for Ha'ara'ah.
(c) Question: One can learn contrarily - since the Torah
revealed that Chayavei Kerisus are liable for Ha'ara'ah,
Chayavei Lavin are only liable for full relations!
(d) Answer (Rav Ashi): If this would be so, the Torah would
not have had to write that one is only liable for a
designated slave by full relations.
(e) Question: How do we know that Ha'ara'ah is considered as
relations by Chayavei Lavin of Kehunah?
(f) Answer: From a Gezeirah Shaveh, "Kichah-Kichah".
(g) Question: How do we know that Ha'ara'ah is considered as
relations by Chayavei Ase?
(h) Answer: From a Gezeirah Shaveh, "Biah-Biah".
3) WHAT IS HA'ARA'AH?
(i) Question: How do we know that a Yevamah that has
relations with a stranger is liable for Ha'ara'ah?
(j) Answer: According to the opinion that this is Chayavei
Lavin - from our source for Chayavei Lavin; according to
the opinion that this is Chayavei Aseh -from our source
for Chayavei Ase!
(k) Question: Rather, how do we know Ha'ara'ah is as full
relations to acquire a Yevamah?
(l) Answer: From a Gezeirah Shaveh, "Biah-Biah".
(m) Question: How do we know that Ha'ara'ah is considered as
relations for a man to marry a woman?
(n) Answer: From a Gezeirah Shaveh, "Kichah-Kichah".
(o) Question (Rava): Why did the Torah have to write "Semen"
by a designated slave, by a married woman, and by a
(p) Answer: Regarding a designated slave - as said above.
1. Regarding a married woman - to exclude relations
with a soft Ever.
(q) "Semen" was written by a Sotah - as taught in a Beraisa.
i. This answer fits the opinion that relations
with a soft Ever are exempt by Arayos.
2. Question: According to the opinion that relations
with a soft Ever are liable by Arayos, how can we
3. Answer: To exclude one that has relations with a
married woman that died.
i. One would think, since she is still considered
his wife after death, one is liable for her -
the verse teaches that this is not so.
1. (Beraisa): "Semen" - to exclude something else.
2. Question: What is this something else?
3. Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): To exclude one that warned
his wife not to have unnatural relations.
4. Objection (Rava): But it says, "Lyings with a woman"
(whether natural or not)!
5. Answer #2 (Rava): To exclude one that warned his
wife not to have intimacy with other parts of the
6. Objection (Abaye): Did the Torah really forbid mere
7. Answer #3 (Abaye): To exclude one that warned his
wife against touching (of the genitals).
i. This fits the opinion that says that Ha'ara'ah
means entrance of the crown (of the Ever).
8. Answer: Really, we can say as Rava, to exclude
intimacy with other parts of the body.
ii. Question: According to the opinion that says
that Ha'ara'ah means touching - how can we
i. We do need to hear this - one would have
thought, the Torah made things dependent on the
whims of the husband, and he is insistent on
this - the verse teaches otherwise.
(a) (Shmuel): Ha'ara'ah is touching.
1. This is analogous to a man that puts his finger on
his mouth - by necessity, it will make some
(b) (Rabah Bar Bar Chanah, citing R. Yochanan): Full
relations said by a designated slave - this is entrance
of the crown.
(c) Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): He is only liable for
1. Suggestion: For emptying out the Ever!
(d) Answer: No, for emptying out the crown.
(e) (Rav Dimi, citing R. Yochanan): Ha'ara'ah is the entrance
of the crown.
1. Talmidim: But Rabah Bar Bar Chanah said otherwise in
R. Yochanan's name!
(f) (Ravin, citing R. Yochanan): Ha'ara'ah is the entrance of
2. Rav Dimi: Either he is a liar, or I am!
1. He certainly argues on Rabah Bar Bar Chanah.
(g) (Rav Shmuel Bar Yehudah, citing R. Yochanan): Ha'ara'ah
is the entrance of the crown; full relations are
literally, full relations.
2. Question: Must we say that he argues on Shmuel?
3. Answer: No - from touching until entrance of the
crown he calls Ha'ara'ah.