QUESTION: The Gemara says that when the Mishnah states, "Ein Acher Chalitzah
Klum," it also means "Ein Acher *Bi'ah* Klum." This means that in a case
where there are two Yevamos, and the Yavam did Bi'ah with the first Yevamah
and then Ma'amar with the second, he does not need to give a Get to revoke
the Ma'amar with the second Yevamah; once Bi'ah was done with one of the
Yevamos, nothing else after it takes effect.
However, we learned earlier (11a) that when a Yavam does Yibum with one of
the Yevamos, the remaining Tzaros become Asur to him only with an Isur Aseh.
Why, then should the Ma'amar (which is an act of Kidushin) not take effect
with the second Yevamah? Kidushin takes effect with a woman who is Asur to
the man with only an Isur Aseh!
The Gemara here said that Ma'amar does not take effect after Chalitzah is
done because there is an Isur Lav with the Tzarah of the woman who did
Chalitzah, and the Mishnah here is following the view of Rebbi Akiva who
holds that Kidushin does not take effect with a woman who is Asur to the man
with an Isur Lav. But after doing Bi'ah with the first Yevamah, there is only
an Isur Aseh to marry the second Yevamah, and thus the Kidushin *should* take
(a) There are opinions in Kesuvos (29b) that maintain that Rebbi Akiva's
opinion is that Kidushin also does not take effect with an Isur Aseh. Hence,
when the Gemara says that our Mishnah is following the view of Rebbi Akiva,
it means that Kidushin does not take effect even with Isurei Aseh. (This is
what the Rosh implies in 5:6.)
(b) However, the TOSFOS YESHANIM (11a), the RAMBAN and other Rishonim there
cite this Gemara as proof that the Tzarah of one's Yevamah is Asur not only
with an Isur Aseh, but also with an Isur Lo Ta'aseh. The Isur is "Lo Yivneh,"
a Lav, which says that "Keivan sh'Banah, Shuv Lo Yivneh ("since he has built
one house through Yibum, he may not build another one"), and it is not an
Isur Aseh ("Bayis Echad Hu Boneh, v'Eino Boneh Shnei Batim" -- "he must build
one house through Yibum, and not two"). Since he did Yibum with this Yevamah
and not the other one, it was as if he sent away the other one with
Even though the Gemara (44a) seems to support Rashi's view that the Isur of
Bi'ah with two Yevamos is because of an Isur Aseh ("Bayis Echad Hu Boneh"),
the ME'IRI (11a) explains that the Gemara does not mean that this verse is
the source of the Isur, but rather the Gemara is just explaining what the
Isur is. The source is actually the Lo Ta'aseh of "Lo Yivneh."
QUESTION: The Gemara questions the Mishnah which rules "Ein Achar Chalitzah
Klum" with regard to giving a Get after doing Chalitzah. The Gemara asks that
it is obvious that the Get is ineffective, because Chalitzah was already
The Gemara responds by asking "and according to you (ul'Ta'ameich) -- how do
you understand the end of the Mishnah, which says that when Ma'amar was done
after Bi'ah, nothing is needed for the Ma'amar." Why would we have thought
that the Ma'amar is effective if Yibum was already done, asks the Gemara.
This Gemara is difficult to understand, because if it is questioning the
Mishnah's inclusion of the case of "Chalatz v'Nasan Get" and the case of
"Ba'al v'Asah Ma'amar," why does the Gemara ask these questions at this
point, when discussing the end of the Mishnah? Those cases appear in the
first part of the Mishnah, as Rashi explains on the Mishnah, and thus the
Gemara should have asked these questions earlier, when it explained the first
part of the Mishnah! (MAHARSHA)
ANSWER: The MAHARSHA answers that this Gemara is not beginning a new
discussion on the Mishnah. Rather, it is actually a continuation of the
previous discussion (as such, the colon should be omitted from the Gemara,
for there should be no separation mark between this Sugya and the previous
one). The Gemara preceding this discussion said that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish
Lakish argue about the status of the Isur of the other brothers to the woman
when one brother did Chalitzah with her. Rebbi Yochanan says that she is Asur
to them with a Lav, and Reish Lakish says that she is Asur to them with
The Gemara attempted to bring support for Rebbi Yochanan from the Mishnah. It
said that according to Reish Lakish, there should be no reason for the
Mishnah to add the Halachah that "Ein Achar Chalitzah Klum" applies to a case
of two Yevamos, because it is obvious that the Yavam who did Chalitzah with
one of the Yevamos is Asur b'Kares to the others, and thus anything he
subsequently does with the others, such as Ma'amar, will not take effect.
According to Rebbi Yochanan, though, the Mishnah needed to mention that case
in order to teach that even though the Tzaros are only Asur to him with an
Isur Lav, nothing can take effect with them (the Mishnah is teaching the view
of Rebbi Akiva, that Kidushin does not take effect with an Isur Lav).
Reish Lakish responded that the Mishnah indeed did not have to mention that
case, but that it mentioned it in order to be parallel with the Reisha of the
Mishnah, since it wants to expand and mention all of the possible scenarios
in each case (with one Yevamah, and with two Yevamos). Reish Lakish proves
that the Mishnah is mentioning cases that are not necessary other than for
the purpose of consistency, because even according to Rebbi Yochanan, there
is no other purpose for the Mishnah to mention that Ma'amar does not help
after Bi'ah in a case where two Yavams do Bi'ah and then Ma'amar with one
Yevamah; when the second Yavam does Ma'amar, the woman is already an Eshes
Ish, so obviously the Ma'amar cannot take effect! It must be that even
according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Mishnah mentions that case only for
consistency. So, too, says Reish Lakish, the case of Ma'amar after Chalitzah
is only for consistency.
The Gemara now continues and tries again to prove that Rebbi Yochanan is
correct. The Gemara says that even in the first part of the Mishnah,
discussing one Yavam with one Yevamah, the Mishnah mentions an obvious
Halachah -- that a Get does not take effect after Chalitzah. According to
Reish Lakish, who says that all of the cases are mentioned only because of
the first case of one Yavam with one Yevamah, then there is no reason for the
Mishnah to mention "Chalatz v'Nasan Get" with one Yevamah if it does not
teach us anything! According to Rebbi Yochanan, though, who holds that the
Mishnah needs to teach us the Halachah of "Chalatz v'Nasan Get" in the case
of two Yevamos, the Mishnah mentions that scenario in the case of one Yevamah
as well, to be consistent with the second part of the Mishnah.
To that challenge, Reish Lakish responds that even "according to you," to
Rebbi Yochanan, what is the point of mentioning the case of "Ba'al v'Asah
Ma'amar" in the case of one Yavam with one Yevamah? Even according to Rebbi
Yochanan, it is not necessary to teach that scenario in the case of one
Yevamah, nor is it necessary to teach it in the case of two Yevamos -- the is
no reason to mention it at all! The Gemara answers that it nevertheless is
mentioned in order to parallel the scenario of "Chalatz v'Asah Ma'amar,"
which does need to be mentioned in the Mishnah.