ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 84
YEVAMOS 84-85 - The last two of four Dafim dedicated in honor of Dr. Charles
and Rosalind Neustein, whose retirement to Florida allows them to spend even
more time engaging in Torah study!
***** Perek Yesh Mutaros *****
(a) One of the four cases of a woman who is permitted to her husband but
forbidden to her Yavam, is that of a Chalal who married a Kesheirah, who is
forbidden to her Yavam who is a Kasher Kohen - because when she married the
Chalal, she herself became a Chalalah.
(b) The Tana also includes a Kohen Hedyot who married a widow, and who has a
brother who is a Kohen Gadol. Initially, we try to explain the Tana
mentioning 'married' (when she would be equally forbidden to the Kohen Gadol
had his brother just betrothed her) - on the grounds that had he only
betrothed her, the prohibition would only be a La'av (of "Almanah Lo
Yikach") which the Mitzvah of Yibum would override; whereas now that he
married her there is also an Asei (of "Ki Im Besulah mei'Amav Yikach
Ishah"), and the Asei of Yibum cannot override a La'av and an Asei.
(c) We reject this answer however - on the basis of the various cases in the
Sugya which are only a La'av (such as Mamzeres to a Yisrael), yet the Asei
of Yibum does not override it (as we learned above on Daf 20a. from
"ve'Alsah Yevimto ha'Sha'rah" - see Maharshal).
(a) Neither can we answer that the Tana mentioned 'married' because of the
Seifa (that a Kohen Gadol who marries an Almanah and who has a brother who
is ... a Kohen Hedyot, is forbidden to both) - because, in that case, the
Tana should rather have mentioned 'betrothed', because of the Metzi'asa
'Kohen Gadol she'Kidesh es ha'Almanah ve'Yesh Lo Ach Kohen Hedyot' (who
would be forbidden to the Yavam if she had been married to the Kohen Gadol -
because she would be a Chalalah).
In the list of those women who are forbidden to their husbands and permitted
to their Yevamin, the Tana includes a widow whom a Kohen Gadol betrothed and
who has a brother who is a Kohen Hedyot. He says 'betrothed' and not
'married' - because had the Kohen Gadol married her, she would have become a
Chalalah, and been forbidden to the Yavam as well.
(b) In fact, he mentions 'married' (in the case of the Kohen Hedyot who
married a widow who has a brother who is a Kohen Gadol) - because of the
case that he brings right next to it: 'Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah ve'Yesh Lo
Ach Kasher' (who is forbidden to the Yavam only because the Chalal actually
(a) If the Yevamah is a Sh'niyah to the husband but not to the Yavam, she is
forbidden to her husband but permitted to the Yavam, which is possible - if
they are paternal brothers but not maternal ones (and his wife is a Sh'niyah
through his mother (e.g. his mother's mother).
(b) All the combinations are applicable to Sh'niyah.
(c) A Sh'niyah who marries her relative is entitled to neither a Kesubah nor
Peiros. Peiros - means the fruit of Nichsei mi'Lug that he ate. Normally,
the husband is permitted to eat Peiros in exchange for his obligation to
redeem her should she be captured.
(d) Despite the fact that her husband is not obligated to redeem her, he is
nevertheless not obligated to return them - because Chazal issued a K'nas on
all the Tena'ei Kesubah (the obligations that they instituted on the
husband) like on the Kesubah itself.
(a) It is obvious that the Sh'ni'yah is not entitled to receive Mezonos as
long as they are living together, seeing as her husband is obligated to
divorce her. When the Tana says that she does not receive Mezonos - he means
that if her husband went overseas and she borrowed money for Mezonos, her
husband will not be required to reimburse the lender.
(b) The (prevailing) opinion that anyone who feeds a woman whilst her
husband is away loses his money - refers to a case when the lender did so of
his own accord without being asked. But should the wife borrow money from
him, he may claim the loan from her, and she then retrieves the money from
(c) Neither does she receive 'Bela'os' - the worn out clothes of Nichsei
mi'Lug and Nichsei Tzon Barzel that she brought into the marriage.
(d) The children however - are Kasher.
(a) We also have a problem why in the opening case in the Mishnah ('a Kohen
Hedyot who married a widow who has a brother who is a Kohen Gadol'), the
Tana needs to mention that she was a widow, seeing as, when the Kohen dies,
she becomes a widow anyway. Initially, we suggest - that this Tana holds
'Nisu'in ha'Rishonim Mapilin', in which case, had she been a Besulah when
the Kohen Hedyot married her, she would be permitted to his brother the
Kohen Gadol when her husband died.
(b) We refute the contention that our Tana holds 'Nisu'in ha'Rishonim
Mapilin' - on the basis of the case of a Chalal who married a Kesheirah,
whom the Tana nevertheless forbids to the Yavam who is a Kasher Kohen.
(c) We ultimately answer that in this case, the Tana certainly mentioned
*Almanah* on account of the Seifa. This refers to the case - 'Kohen Gadol
she'Nasa es ha'Almanah ve'Yesh Lo Ach ... Kohen Hedyot', to whom she is Asur
only because when the Kohen Gadol married her, she was an Almanah and
through the marriage, she became a Chalalah.
(a) According to Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan (78a.), when a Mitzri marries
a Mitzris, we always go after the mother. Consequently, in the context of
our Mishnah, if a Mitzri Rishonah is married both to a Mitzris Rishonah and
a Mitzris Sh'niyah, who both have sons who get married, their wives will be
(b) They would both be permitted to both their husbands and their Yevamin -
if each of them married Giyoros (who are permitted both a Yisrael and to a
- ... permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their Yevamin - if they marry the same level (the Sheini married a Sheinis, and the Sh'lishi, a Yisre'eilis).
- ... forbidden to their husbands and permitted to their Yevamin - if they married different levels (the Sheini, a Yisre'eilis, and the Sh'lishi, a Sheinis).
(c) And they would be forbidden to both, if each of them married an Aylonis.
In the case when the Sheini married a Yisre'eilis who was an Aylonis, she
would be forbidden ...
(d) The Tana does not insert the case of Mitzri and Mitzris in our Mishnah,
together with the Chayvei La'avin and the Sh'niyos - because he omits the
case of P'tzu'a Daka anyway, and it is quite in order for a Tana to omit
*two* cases from a Mishnah (provided he does not omit *one*).
- ... to her husband - because she is a Yisre'eilis.
- ... to her Yavam - because of the La'av "Asher Teiled" 'P'rat le'Aylonis'.
(a) We query the answer that P'tzu'a Daka is considered a Shiyur - on the
grounds that the Mishnah has no reason to mention it in the first place,
seeing as it has already mentioned Chayvei La'avin.
(b) We reply that the Tana also repeats different kinds of Chayvei La'avin,
such as Kohen Hedyot she'Nasa Almanah and Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah. We
query this however - on the grounds that it might be necessary to mention
Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah (even after having mentioned Kohen Hedyot she'Nasa
Almanah), in order to teach us Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's Din, that Kesheiros
are permitted to marry Pesulim (a Kasher Kohenes to marry a Chalal).
(c) And he needs to mention the Din of Yisrael she'Nasa bas Yisrael ve'Yesh
Lo Ach Mamzer after having mentioned Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah ve'Yesh Lo
Ach Kasher - to teach us that even when the La'av that forbids her to her
husband is one that applies to everyone, she is nevertheless permitted to
the Yavam (see Tosfos DH 've'Kamashma Lan').
(d) We ultimately learn that P'tzu'a Daka is considered a Shiyur (thereby
justifying the omission of the case of a Mitzri who was married to two
Mitzriyos) - from the case of Yisrael she'Nasa Mamzeres ve'Yesh Lo Ach
Yisrael, which is entirely superfluous, in which case the Tana could also
have inserted the case of P'tzu'a Daka.
(a) We try to prove from the case in our Mishnah 'Chalal she'Nasa
Kesheirah' - that 'Lo Huzharu Kesheiros le'Hinasei li'P'sulin' (like Rav
Yehudah Amar Rav), because we think that 'Kesheirah' refers to a Kasher
(b) We initially think that 'Kesheirah' *must* mean a Kohenes Kesheirah
li'Kehunah - because, as the Gemara says in Pesachim, a Kohen should, if
possible, marry a Kohenes.
(c) We initially reject the explanation that 'Kesheirah' means Kesheirah
le'Kahal, because, in that case 'Yesh Lo Ach Kasher' will also mean Kasher
le'Kahal. But that cannot be - because it would imply that the deceased
brother was Pasul le'Kahal, which is not the case. In fact, he was a Chalal,
in which case he was Pasul li'Kehunah (not le'Kahal), and his brother is
(d) Nevertheless, we conclude - there is no reason why 'Ach Kasher' should
not mean Kasher li'Kehunah, and 'Kesheirah', Kesheirah le'Kahal.
Consequently, we remain with no proof for Rav Yehudah Amar Rav.
(a) Ravin bar Nachman queries Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (who permits Kesheiros to
marry P'sulim) from the Beraisa "Lo Yikachu" 'Melamed she'ha'Ishah Muzheres
al Yedei ha'Ish' - which he interprets to mean that a Kesheirah is forbidden
to marry a Pasul in the same way as a Kasher is forbidden to marry a
(b) Rava answers - that what the Beraisa means is that whenever the Kohen is
warned not to marry the woman (i.e. a Kasher not to marry a Pesulah), then
she is equally forbidden to marry him.
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and the Beraisa of Rebbi Yishmael learn from the
Pasuk "Ish O Ishah Ki Ya'asu mi'Kol Chat'os ha'Adam", that the Torah is
comparing women to men regarding all punishments - with regard to a La'av
which applies to everybody; The Beraisa of "Lo Yikachu" comes to extend that
principle even to La'avin which only apply to some people (such as La'avin
(a) We learn from the Pasuk with regard to the prohibition of Tum'as Meis of
Kohanim "Emor el ha'Kohanim *B'nei Aharon*" - that women are not included in
the La'av prohibiting Kohanim from becoming Tamei Meis ("B'nei Aharon"
've'Lo B'nos Aharon').
(b) Even without the Derashah of "Ish O Ishah", we have thought that women
are included in the Din of Tum'ah (despite the fact that it is a La'av that
is confined to Kohanim - from the Derashah of "Lo Yikachu".
(c) According to the second Lashon, we need to learn from "Lo Yikachu" that
women are included in the Isur. We would not have learnt it from "Ish
ve'Ishah" - because the Torah precludes women from Tum'as Kohanim (from
"B'nei Aharon" 've'Lo B'nos Aharon').