(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Yevamos 24

YEVAMOS 24 - sponsored by Jeff Ram (Atlanta/Jerusalem), an avid Dafyomi learner and loyal supporter of Kollel Iyun Hadaf. May he and his wife have much Nachas from the young couple, David and Rachel, as well as all their other children and grandchildren!


(a) From where do we learn that 'Mitzvah be'Gadol le'Yabeim'?

(b) If a younger brother performs Yibum with his Yevamah, does he acquire her?

(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk ...

  1. ... "Asher Teiled"?
  2. ... "ve'Lo Yimacheh Sh'mo mi'Yisrael"?
(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk "Yakum al Shem Achiv"?

(b) Perhaps the Torah means that the son who is subsequently born should be called by the same name as the deceased brother?

(c) What Chidush does Rava tell us with regard to this D'rashah?

(d) According to the simple explanation, the Torah is saying that the baby that is born to them should be called after hus deceased uncle. If the Torah was speaking to the Yavam, it should have written "Yakum al Shem *Achicha*"; if it is speaking to the Beis-Din, it should have written "Yakum al Shem *Achi Aviv*".
To whom *is* the Torah speaking?

(a) Seeing as the Torah writes "Bechor", how do we know that any of the other brothers can perform Yibum at all?

(b) Maybe 'Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo' refers to a maternal brother?

(c) So what do we learn from here? On whom is the initial onus of performing Yibum?

(a) How do we know that the Torah does not write "Bechor" to tell us that when there is a Bechor, the Mitzvah takes place with any of the brothers, and when there is not, it doesn't?

(b) Perhaps the Pasuk of "u'Meis Achad Meihem" is speaking when the younger brother died, and it is the Bechor who performs Yibum?

(c) Why can we not then say that when there is no Bechor, then a younger brother who performed Yibum may retain his Yevamah, but when there is, then it is only the oldest brother who can perform Yibum?

(a) What does the Tana (quoted by Abaye Keshisha) mean when he says 'Mitzvah be'Gadol le'Yabeim; Lo Ratzah, *Holchin Eitzel Achiv ha'Katan*; Lo Ratzah ... ' (see also Tosfos DH 've'Im')? What are we trying to prove from here?

(b) Why can we not learn this from the previous words 'Mitzvah be'Gadol le'Yabeim'? How do we know that the proof is from the second statement of the Beraisa and not from *there*?

(c) And how do we know that even if another brother other than the Bechor performs Yibum, he still takes his deceased brother's property?

6) Seeing as there is no practical difference between a Bechor and the oldest brother who is not a Bechor, why does the Torah refer to the oldest brother as "Bechor"?

Answers to questions



(a) Someone who is suspected of having had relations with a Shifchah is forbidden to marry her when she is set free, and the same applies to a Nochris who converts.
Why is that?

(b) May he remain with her if he marries her illegally, or must he divorce her?

(c) Why, on the other hand, is someone who is suspected of adultery with a married woman obligated to divorce her, if he married her after her divorce?

(a) What does Rebbi Nechemyah say about a man who converted in order to marry a Jewess or vice-versa?

(b) He also disqualifies conversions for reasons of wealth, prestige, terror of wild animals, superstition or fear of retaliation.
What does he mean when he says 'ad she'Yisgayru bi'Z'man ha'Zeh'?

(c) How does our Mishnah imply that the conversion of a Nochri who converts for one of these reasons is legal?

(d) How do we then explain our Mishnah in light of the Beraisa of the above Beraisa of Rebbi Nechemyah?

9) What does Rebbi Elazar learn from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Hein Gor Yagur Efes mei'Osi; Mi Gar Itach Alayich Yipol"?


(a) According to Rav, our Mishnah (which requires the suspected adulterer to divorce the woman, if he married her) speaks when there are witnesses that he committed adultery with her.
What does Rav Sheishes comment on Rav?

(b) How does he attempt to repudiate Rav's statement from the Beraisa which permits the suspected adulterer to remain with the woman, if she first married someone else and was then divorced from him? What does he infer from there to prove Rav wrong?

(c) We reject this however, by pointing out that the Tana needs to add that someone else married her first, for its intrinsic Chidush.
What is the Chidush?

(a) If the suspected adulterer subsequently married the woman after her divorce, and has children from her, he is not obligated to divorce her. Why not?

(b) When will this concession not apply?

(c) How do we now establish our Mishnah to conform with Rav's initial statement (that it speaks when there were witnesses)?

(d) What forced Rav to establish our Mishnah when there were children and witnesses? How does he know that it does not speak when there were no children and no witnesses?

(a) Alternatively, Rav will establish the Beraisa that we quoted earlier (from which we inferred that, if not for the fact that the woman had first married someone else, the adulterer would be obligated to divorce her, even though there were no witnesses) like an individual opinion (whereas he holds like the Rabbanan).
Like which Tana does he establish it?

(b) What does Rebbi say about a husband who arrives home and finds a peddler leaving the house, and his wife getting dressed?

(c) Which other two cases does he cite?

(d) In the latter case, why can we not just check whose shoes they are?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,