ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 11
YEVAMOS 11 & 12 (2 & 3 Teves) - the Dafyomi study for the last day of
Chanukah and 3 Teves has been dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav Yisrael
Zev Gustman ZaTZaL (author of "Kuntresei Shiurim") and his wife (on her
Yahrzeit), by a student who merited to study under him.
(a) We just cited the Beraisa 'ha'Choletz li'Yevimto ve'Chazar ve'Kid'shah,
u'Meis, Tzerichah Chalitzah min ha'Achin. Amad Echad min ha'Achin
ve'Kid'shah, Ein Lah Alav K'lum'. The Seifa goes well with Resh Lakish, the
Reisha does not, since, according to him, a Chalutzah whom the Chalutz or
one of the brothers re-married ought not to require Chalitzah (as we just
explained). Rav Ashi (who holds like Resh Lakish) resolves this problem by
explaining 'the brothers' to mean Achin ha'Yilodim - meaning brothers who
were born after the Kidushin.
(b) Brothers who were born after the Kidushin are permitted according to
Rebbi Shimon (who is the author of this Beraisa), who permits Eishes Achiv
she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo under similar circumstances.
(c) Ravina who holds like Rebbi Yochanan, explains the Reisha according to
the Rabbanan (by Achin ha'Noladim). He answer Resh Lakish's Kashya on Rebbi
Yochanan from the Seifa (cited at the end of 10a. - Why the Tana says 'Ein
Lo Alav K'lum') - by establishing it by Achim ha'Yilodim, according to the
Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon, who are Asur on the Chalutzah with an Isur Kareis
because of Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo.
(d) According to Rebbi Yochanan, one of the brothers who has relations with
a Yevamah after his brother performed Yibum with her Tzarah, transgress the
Asei of "Beis Achiv" - 'Bayis Echad Hu Boneh, ve'Eino Boneh Sh'nei Batim'
(because a La'av that stems from an Asei, is an Asei).
(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, Tzaras Sotah - a woman who definitely
commited adultery (with two witnesses), and whose husband then died is Patur
from both Yibum and Chalitzah.
(b) The reason for this Halachah, in spite of the fact that she is only
forbidden to her husband by a La'av - is the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Nisterah
ve'Hi *Nitma'ah*" (which uses 'Tum'ah' comparing her to the Arayos, where it
writes "Al Titam'u be'Chol Eileh").
(a) If, after hearing testimony that her husband had died, she remarries and
her husband then appears, she is forbidden to both men. According to the
Rabbanan, should they both subsequently die, she requires Chalitzah from the
brother of each one. Rebbi Shimon (in Perek ha'Ishah Rabah) says ...
1. ... that she is permitted to perform Yibum or Chalitzah should her first
husband die (because she is an Anusah, and we not penalize her).
(b) We can infer from here, according to the Rabbanan - that the Tzarah of a
Sotah can even perform Yibum (because they only disagree with Rebbi Shimon
with regard to the Sotah herself, but not with regard to the Tzarah).
2. ... that she also exempts her Tzarah from Yibum.
(c) Rav's own ruling, that Tzaras Sotah is considered an Ervah, refers to a
Vaday Sotah, which the Torah specifically forbids, whereas the Beraisa is
speaking about a Sotah de'Rabbanan (because min ha'Torah, a woman who
marries with the Beis-Din's permission is permitted to her husband, and it
is the Rabbanan who forbade her in order to force her to make doubly sure
before marrying someone else, that her husband is really dead).
(d) This answer appears obvious. Nevertheless, Rav Chisda asked the Kashya -
because of the principle that whatever the Rabbanan instituted, they gave
the same rules as the equivalent d'Oraysa. Consequently, we would have
thought that just like the Tzarah of a Sotah d'Oraysa is forbidden to the
Yavam, so too should a Sotah de'Rabbanan be forbidden, and require only
Chalitzah, but not Yibum.
(a) In the case of a regular Sotah, the Torah write the word "Nitme'ah"
three times (once with a 'Vav') - once to forbid her to her husband (until
she drinks the bitter water), once to forbid her to the adulterer and once
to forbid her to eat Terumah.
(b) The Tana of the Beraisa rules - that should her husband die before
taking her to the Beis-Hamikdash, she requires Chalitzah.
(c) Rav who holds that, by a Sotah, there is no Chalitzah either speaks in
the case of Sotah Vaday (as we explained earlier) - whereas the Beraisa is
referring to a Safek Sotah.
(a) The Torah writes by the La'av of Machzir Gerushaso in Ki Seitzei
"Acharei Asher Hutama'ah". This come to ...
1. ... preclude, according to Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar quoting Rebbi Elazar -
Machzir Gerushaso min ha'Eirusin.
(b) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "ve'Haysah le'Ish Acher" - that it
makes no difference whether the woman married the second man or whether she
was only betrothed to him, either way, she is forbidden to return to her
first husband when the second one dies.
2. ... include, according to the Chachamim, who do not differentiate between
Machzir Gerushaso min ha'Nisu'in or min ha'Eirusin - Tzaras Sotah.
(c) According to Rav, who just argued that a Safek Sotah must make Chalitzah
because it is only by a Sotah Vaday that the Torah mentions Tum'ah - will
explain that, when the Rabbanan learned a La'av by Sotah *she'Nisterah* from
"Acharei Asher Hutama'ah", they meant Sotah *she'Niv'elah*, and they only
said Sotah *she'Nisterah*, in order to speak modestly.
(d) True, the Torah has already written "ve'Nisterah ve'Hi Nitma'ah" - it
nevertheless found it necessary to add the Pasuk "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah" -
in order to make it a La'av ("Lo Yuchal ... ") which is not mentioned by the
Pasuk "ve'Nisterah ve'Hi Nitma'ah".
(a) Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar states that the Torah writes by Machzir Gerushaso
'Havayah ve'Ishus' - meaning that the Torah writes by her "ve'Yatz'ah
ve'Haysah le'Ish Acher", and that is when there is a La'av on the husband
("Lo Yuchal ... ").
(b) But not he extrapolates - in the case of a Sotah, whom the husband has
not divorved (according to the text of the Gra - he precludes a divorcee who
committed adultery without actually marrying the adulterer - in which case,
her husband is permitted to remarry her).
(a) Rav Yehudah asked Rav Sheishes whether, according to the Rabbanan, the
brother of a Machzir Gerushaso mi'she'Niseis is Chayav to perform Yibum with
her Tzarah. This is not a She'eilah according to Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar -
because, in his opinion, since Tum'ah is written by Machzir Gerushaso, it is
obvious that her Tzarah has the same Din as she has (like a Rzaras Ervah).
(b) Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar will then infer from the Pasuk "To'eivah *Hi"* -
"Hi" To'eivah, ve'Ein Banehah To'eivin (thereby permitting her daughter to
marry a Kohen).
(c) According to the Rabbanan, why might "To'eivah Hi" apply to Machzir
Gerushaso, despite the fact that, in their opinion, it refers to a Sotah
(Vaday) - because of the principle 'Ein Makra Yotz'ei Miydei Peshuto'.
(d) On the other hand, it might not - because of the possibility 'Keivan
de'Iyakar Iyakar' ('Once the Torah takes something out of its simple
context, it is out').
(a) Alternatively, the She'eilah is confined to Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar, but,
according to the Rabbanan, it is obvious that 'Keivan de'I'akar I'akar. The
She'eilah will then be - whether "To'eivah *Hi* comes to preclude his
children (as we learned above) or his wife.
(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from a Mishnah in ha'Choletz: 'Haysah
Achas Kesheirah, ve'Achas Pesulah, Im Hayah Choletz, Choletz li'Pesulah,
ve'Im Hayah Meyabem, Meyabem li'Kesheirah'. We initially assume that
Kesheirah and Pesulah cannot mean le'Alma (to others, but not to him) -
because, if the two women are permitted to him, then why should he not
perform wither Yibum or Chalitzah with whichever one he wishes?
(c) In that case - the Beraisa must mean that one of the women is permitted
to him, the other is forbidden, because of Machzir Gerushaso, from which we
can see that Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso is permitted (in spite of the fact
that the Torah writes Tum'ah by Machzir Gerushaso).
(d) The Beraisa cannot be referring to the Tzarah of an ordinary Chayvei
La'avin such as a Gerushah li'Kohen Hedyot - because that would not a
Chidush (seeing as the Torah has not compared her to Chayvei Kerisus by
writing 'Tum'ah by her).
(a) We refute this proof however, by re-instating the Mishnah by Kesheirah
and Pesulah le'Alma, dismissing our initial objection by establishing it
like Rav Yosef - who says that Rebbi is teaching us in this Mishnah that a
person should not pour out the water of his pit, should others have a need
for them. What he meant is that, since it makes no difference to him which
woman he is Choletz, he should rather do so with the woman who is Pesulah,
thereby leaving the Kesheirah free to marry a Kohen; whereas had he been
Choletz the Kesheirah, both women would have been forbidden to a Kohen.
(b) So we try to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa 'ha'Machzir Gerushaso
mi'she'Niseis Hi ve'Tzarasah Choletzes'. This is obviously a printing error.
We refute the suggested text 'O Hi O Tzarasah Choletzes' (which would
resolve our She'eilah one way) - by saying that, since the text must be
amended anyway, we may as well amend it to read 'Hi Choletzes, Tzarasah, O
Choletzes O Misyabemes' (which would resolve it the other way).
(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan posed the same She'eilah as Rav
Yehudah (whether Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso is subject to Yibum or not). He
did not ask the same She'eilah regarding the Gerushah herself - because he
considered it obvious that, if she is forbidden to her former husband, to
whom she was previously *permitted*, she should certainly be forbidden to
the Yavam, to whom she was *not*.
(b) The She'eilah, according to him - is whether the Kal va'Chomer is strong
enough to push away the Tzarah as well, or not.
(c) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Rebbi Yochanan posed the
She'eilah regarding the Gerushah herself - whether we can apply the above
'Kal va'Chomer' in face of the Mitzvah of Yibum, or not.
(d) He did not pose it with regard to the Tzarah - because it was obvious to
him that the 'Kal va'Chomer' is not strong enough to forbid the Tzarah, too.