ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 85
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!
(a) When Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua arrived in Sh'chintziv,
the people asked them whether Kesheiros are forbidden to marry Pesulim. Rav
Papa brought a proof from the Mishnah in Asarah Yuchsin - where the Tana
lists ten categories of Yuchsin who returned to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel.
(b) Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisre'eilim are permitted to marry each other. In
the list 'Levi'im, Yisre'eilim, Chalalim, Geirim and Charurim
(Meshuchrarim)' - the Tana omitted Kohanim - because a Kohen is not
permitted to marry a Chalalah, a Giyores or a Meshuchreres.
(a) 'Geiri, Charuri, Mamzeiri, Nesini, Shesuki and Asufi are permitted to
marry each other'. Rav Papa tries to resolve the She'eilah from here - by
virtue of the fact that the Tana omitted 'Kohanos and Chalalim from the list
(implying that a Kohenes is forbidden to marry a Chalal).
(b) In fact, there is no proof from there - because the Tana only mentions
those cases that are permitted to each other, but not to those where the
concession works only one way.
(c) Rav Idi bar Avin finally quoted Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - who specifically
said 'Lo Huzharu Kesheiros le'Hinasei li'P'sulim'.
(a) The B'nei Biri asked Rav Sheishes whether a woman who is a Sh'niyah to
her husband but not to her Yavam receives a Kesubah from her Yavam. The
reason that ...
1. ... she should not - is because initially, her Kesubah comes out of her
(b) Rav Sheishes replied - with a Beraisa, which specifically rules that
've'Im Haysah Sh'niyah le'Ba'al, Afilu mi'Yavam Ein Lah'.
2. ... she should - is because, when her husband leaves no property, then
the Yavam pays her Kesubah.
(c) This wording is inadequate - inasmuch as it presumes that some women do
receive their Kesubah from the Yavam, without actually saying so?
(d) So we amend it by adding ''ve'I Les Lah mei'Rishon, Tiknu Lah mi'Sheini'
between the two phrases.
(a) An Almanah who marries a Kohen Gadol is eligible to receive a Kesubah.
(b) Rebbi Elazar nevertheless asked Rebbi Yochanan whether she is entitled
to Mezonos, because he maintained that, even though Mezonos is a T'nai
Kesubah, she may not be entitled to it - because whereas the Kesubah is part
of the process that results in her leaving the marriage (which is what we
want to encourage in this case), Mezonos is not; if anything, it will serve
as an incentive to remain.
(c) Rebbi Elazar was referring to a case - where her husband traveled
overseas, and she subsequently borrowed money from an acquaintance in order
to sustain herself.
(d) We reconcile Rebbi Yochanan's reply in the negative with the Beraisa,
which states that she *does* receive it - by establishing the Beraisa by an
Almanah, where the fear that she might remain in the marriage does not
(a) In the second Lashon - Rebbi Yochanan replied in the affirmative (that
she does receive her Kesubah).
(b) We object to his answer however - on the grounds that, if that is so,
how will we succeed in encouraging her to leave the marriage?
(c) The Beraisa which says that she does receive Mezonos - speaks by an
Almanah, as we explained earlier.
(d) An Almanah remains entitled to claim it - throughout the period of her
widowhood (like a regular Almanac).
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa states that an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol and a
Gerushah va'Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot are entitled to a Kesubah and to
Peiros, Mezonos and Bela'os. Their children are Chalalim.
(b) A regular Gerushah or Almanah *is not entitled to claim* the Peiros that
her husband ate whilst they were married (only the Peiros that remain
(c) Nevertheless, the Almanah and the Gerushah va'Chalutzah under discussion
*are* - because their husbands had no right to eat the Peiros in the first
(d) According to the Tana Kama, the reason that an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol
and a Gerushah va'Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot are entitled to a Kesubah
together with the Tena'ei Kesubah (except for Mezonos), whilst Sh'niyos are
not is - because wherever either he or she becomes Pasul, Chazal did not
need to punish her, seeing as when *he* becomes Pasul, that will be the
cause of constant squabbling (resulting in turn, in a divorce), and when
*she* becomes Pasul, she will not want to remain in the marriage anyway
(because her descendants will be permanently Pasul).
(a) According to Rebbi, the difference between an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol and
a Gerushah va'Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot on the one hand, and Sh'niyos on the
other is - that whereas the former constitute an Isur d'Oraysa, which does
not require reinforcement, the latter constitutes an Isur de'Rabbanan, which
(b) The Beraisa adds a second explanation 'Zeh, *Hu* Margilah, ve'Zu, *Hi*
Margilaso'. Some explain that the author of this statement is Rebbi Shimon
ben Elazar, who is not coming to argue completely with the Tana Kama - but
to explain the reasoning behind his words. What the Tana Kama meant, he
explains, when he said that, when he or she is Pasul, Chazal penalized him,
to make him pay her Kesubah, is that they penalized him because they take
for granted that *he* must have been the one to convince *her* to marry him,
and not vice-versa; whereas in a case of Sh'niyos, *she* will have been the
one to do the convincing.
(c) According to others, it is Rebbi who added the statement to his original
explanation - because his original reason (that Divrei Torah do not require
reinforcement) will not explain why a Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot (which is
only mi'de'Rabbanan) receives a Kesubah. So he added the reason of 'Zeh Hu
Margilah ... ', to incorporate a Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot together with the
Pesulim d'Oraysa, since, either way, she would not be the one to talk him
into marrying her, since she will become a Chalalah (mi'de'Rabbanan).
(a) Rav Chisda suggests that the difference between Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon
ben Elazar will be a case of a Mamzeres u'Nesinah le'Yisrael - because on
the one hand, it is d'Oraysa, and does not therefore require reinforcing; on
the other, *she* would have been the one to do the convincing, since
marrying him, does not cause her to become any more Pasul than she was.
Neither does the fact that her children will be Mamzeirim bother her,
because Rebbi Tarfon has already taught us in Asarah Yuchsin how to remove
the P'sul of Mamzeirus from a family.
(b) We conclude however, that this difference would not work out according
to Rebbi Eliezer in Asarah Yuchsin, who disagrees with Rebbi Tarfon - and
says that if a Mamzer marries a Shifchah who gives birth to a son, he is
both an Eved and a Mamzer.
(c) So Rav Yosef suggests that the difference between them is a Machzir
Gerushaso mi'she'Niseis, who is forbidden min ha'Torah, yet she is the one
who is most likely to try and talk him into marrying her. We reject this
suggestion too, because of Rebbi Akiva - who holds 'Yesh Mamzer mei'Chayvei
La'avin', in which case, she will not try and convince him to marry her,
because her children will be Mamzeirim.
(a) So Rav Papa suggests that the difference between them is Be'ulah
le'Kohen Gadol, who is forbidden min ha'Torah, yet she is the one who is
most likely to try and talk him into marrying her - seeing as this is only
an Isur Asei, in which case, she will not be a Zonah, and her children will
not be Chalalim.
(b) We reject Rav Papa's suggestion on the basis of the opinion of Rebbi
Eliezer ben Ya'akov - who says that the children of Chayvei Asei are
(c) Rav Ashi then suggests that Machzir Safek Sotaso (which is forbidden min
ha'Torah, yet she will be the one to talk him into taking her back), is the
bone of contention between Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. And this too,
we reject on the basis of Rebbi Masya ben Charash - who says that even if a
man is taking his wife, who is a Safek Sotah, to drink the water of a Sotah,
and he has relations with her, she becomes a Zonah, in which case she would
prefer to drink the water first.
(a) Mar bar Rav Ashi finally concludes that their bone of contention is
Sotah Vaday - who is Asur to her husband min ha'Torah (because of "ve'Hi Lo
Nispasah"), but who will be the one to talk her husband into living
together, since she is a Zonah anyway, and has nothing to lose.
(b) Even though, according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar, she
too, is among the Chayvei La'avin (from the Pasuk "Acharei Asher
Hutama'ah"), we have already learned in 'ha'Choletz that even Rebbi Akiva
agrees that the child of a Sotah is not a Mamzer.
(a) A bas Yisrael who is betrothed to a Kohen, one who is pregnant from her
deceased husband who was a Kohen, and a Shomeres Yavam to a Kohen, all have
in common - the fact that they are forbidden to eat Terumah?
(b) The problem with the Mishnah which says the same with regard to a bas
Yisrael eating Ma'aser should the above three be Levi'im - is that a Zar (a
non-Levi in this case) is permitted to eat Ma'aser anyway, seeing as Ma'aser
is not called Kodesh (and will not therefore be included in the prohibition
of "Kol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh")?
(c) We answer that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir - who forbids
Ma'aser to be eaten by Zarim.