ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 19
(a) We just proved from the Mishnah in Arba'ah Achin that Rebbi Shimon is
not sure whether Zikah (together with Ma'amar) is Koneh or not (how much
more so can we not say with certainty that Zikah on its own is Koneh). But
we counter this by asking that perhaps really, Ma'amar *is* Koneh in his
opinion, and the reason that he requires Chalitzah on the second Yevamah is
because of a decree - that people might otherwise think that when two
Yevamos fall to Yibum at the same time from two different houses, the first
one only requires Yibum and the second one is Patur.
(b) We refute this contention - on the grounds that Rebbi Shimon himself
gave the reason as being a Safek whether Ma'amar is Koneh or not, and not
due to a decree.
(c) So Abaye tries to resolve the discrepancy between our theory that Rebbi
Shimon holds 'Zikah ki'Ch'nusah', and the Mishnah in Arba'ah Achin - by
restricting Rebbi Shimon's S'vara of 'Zikah ki'Ch'nusah' to a case of where
there is *One* Yavam, but not where are two.
(a) 'K'lal Amar Rebbi Shimon; Kol she'ha'Leidah Kodemes le'Nisu'in, Lo
Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes; Nisu'in Kodem le'Leidah, O Choletzes O
Misyabemes'. According to what we just said - there must be two Yevamin
there besides the new-born brother, because otherwise, even though he was
born before the second brother performed Yibum, he should be permitted to
perform Yibum, seeing as, by one brother, Rebbi Shimon holds 'Zikah
ki'Ch'nusah' (in which case, it is as if he was born *after* the second
brother had performed Yibum.
(b) The Tana differentiates between 'Leidah Kodemes le'Nisu'in' and 'Nisu'in
Kodem le'Leidah', and not between one Yavam and two Yevamin - because he
wants to establish the entire Beraisa by *two* Yevamin.
(c) We object to this however - because it is senseless to confine the
Beraisa to a case of *two* Yevamin, ignoring the fact that, when there is
only *one*, the Din will be different.
(a) In a Mishnah in Arba'ah Achin, the Tana Kama says that if two out of
three brothers were married to two sisters, or a woman and her daughter, or
a woman and her granddaughter (the daughter of her son or of her daughter)
and died, both women require Chalitzah. Based on the Pasuk "ve'Ishah el
Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tz'ror" - Rebbi Shimon says whenever two sisters (or
two other blood relatives) become Tzaros through the Zikah (like in this
case), they are Patur from Yibum or Chalitzah.
(b) Rav Oshaya attempts to refute our theory that (even by *one* brother)
Rebbi Shimon holds 'Zikah ki'Ch'nusah' from here - because if that was the
case, then the Yavam should be able to perform Yibum with the Yevamah that
fell first, and the second one should be exempt?
(c) We reject Rav Amram's suggestion that Rebbi Shimon does indeed only
exempt the Yevamah that falls second to the Yavam, but not the one who falls
first - on the basis of another Beraisa, in which Rebbi Shimon explicitly
exempts both women from Yibum altogether.
(a) Rava tried to answer 'Sh'niyah she'be'Zug Zeh u'Sh'niyah she'be'Zug
Zeh' - because he thought that the Beraisa was talking when the two brothers
married all the pairs mentioned there: the two sisters, the mother and
daughter, the woman and her son's daughter and the woman and her daughter's
daughter. Then both brothers died and all four pairs fell to the third
brother for Yibum.
According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili if an animal gives birth for the first
time to a litter of two babies simultaneously, both babies must be given to
the Kohen. The Rabbanan say - that the owner must give one of them to the
Kohen, and the other one must be allowed to graze until it obtains a
blemish, when the owner may redeem and eat it.
(b) Besides the fact that the Mishnah explicitly writes 'O' between each of
the cases (and not 'u') - the Tana of the Beraisa ought to have then said
'Rebbi Shimon Poter *be'Arba'tan'* rather than '*bi'Sh'teihen*'.
(c) We bring a further proof, based on Rebbi Shimon's D'rashah from the
Pasuk "ve'Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tz'ror" (that sisters who become
Tzaros through the Zikah are Patur even from Chalitzah) that he does *not*
hold 'Zikah ki'Ch'nusah' even by one Yavam - because if he *did*, then the
first of the two sisters to fall, should require Yibum.
(d) We reinstate our original contention that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Zikah
ki'Ch'nusah' by establishing Rebbi Shimon like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - who
says that it is possible for two animals in the same litter to be born at
exactly the same moment. Likewise we establish the Mishnah and the Beraisa
of Rebbi Shimon (who holds like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili) when both Yevamos fell
to Yibum simultaneously; that is when he exempts the two sisters from Yibum.
(a) Rav Papa disagrees with Rav Oshaya, who maintained on the previous Amud
that Rebbi Shimon argues with the Rabbanan in our Mishnah even in the Reisha
(by Nolad ve'Achar-Kach Yibeim). According to him, the Tana needs to
mention the Reisha (according to the Chachamim) - in the form of 'Lo Zu Af
Zu', meaning that it is the way of the Mishnah to mention the smaller
Chidush first, and then to add the bigger Chidush afterwards.
(b) We prove Rav Papa's opinion from the last case in the Beraisa, which
cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon by 'Yibeim
ve'li'b'Sof Nolad Lo Ach' - because it can only be in order to establish in
which case Rebbi Shimon argues, that the Tana mentions this as a separate
case. According to Rebbi Meir, who does not differentiate between whether
the Yibum preceded the birth of the third son or not, it would not be
necessary to mention it as a separate case.
(a) The first case in the Beraisa exempts the third brother to perform Yibum
with the wife of the second, but not with the Yevamah who fell from the
first brother, and with whom the second brother wanted to make Ma'amar, but
did not manage to. What the Tana means is - that he did not manage to gain
her consent, and had to make Ma'amar without it, like the Rabbanan of Rebbi.
(b) According to Rebbi - the Ma'amar that a Yavam makes without the
Yevamah's consent is valid, because he learns Ma'amar from the Bi'ah of
Yibum (which *acquires* even without the Yevamah's consent); according to
the Rabbanan, it is not valid, because they learn it from regular Kidushin,
which does *not*.
(c) We learn that ...
1. ... Yibum may be performed even without the consent of the Yevamah -
from "ve'Yibmah" (see Sugya 8b.)
(d) 'Rebbi Shimon Omer, Bi'asah O Chalitzasah shel Achas Meihen Poteres
Tzarasah'. Rebbi Shimon is coming to argue, not on the case of 'Nolad Lo
Ach, ve'Achar-Kach Asah Bah Ma'amar' but on that of 'Asah Bah Ma'amar
ve'Achar-Kach Nolad Lo Ach' - because we have already learned that, if the
third brother was born before Yibum (and certainly before Ma'amar) was
performed, then Rebbi Shimon concedes to the Chachamim that the Yevamah
remains forbidden. The Chidush now is that Ma'amar is either Koneh
completely or not Koneh at all.
2. ... Kidushin can only be performed with the woman's consent - from
"ve'Halchah ve'Haysah le'Ish Acher" (implying of her own free will).
(a) 'Chalatz le'Ba'alas Ma'amar, Lo Nifterah Tzarah' - because the Tzarah is
a Vaday (Zekukah), whereas the Ba'alas Ma'amar is a Safek (maybe Ma'amar is
Koneh), and a Safek cannot remove the obligation of a Vaday.
(b) Rebbi Shimon has explained why he permits the third brother, if he is
born after the second brother performed Yibum with her. But, considering
that there was never a Zikah of the first brother between her and the third
brother, why should the Rabbanan forbid her to him?
(c) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "u'Lekachah Lo le'Ishah *ve'Yibmah*" - that the original Yibumin
remain with the Yevamah even after the second brother has performed Yibum
(solving our problem in the previous question).
(d) We Darshen from the latter D'rashah that she becomes his wife in
totality - because it is speaking about the Mitzvah of Yibum, which is
basically permitted; and from the former, that the original Yibumin
remains - because it is speaking about Eishes Achiv, which basically
involves an Isur.
2. ... "u'Lekachah Lo le'Ishah" - that, once the Yavam has acquired her
through Yibum, she becomes his wife, even to the extent that he can divorce
her and take her back, because the Isur of Eishes Ach has dissolved.