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


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 89

YEVAMOS 86-90 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


QUESTION: In order to prove that Beis Din may uproot a Mitzvah in the Torah, the Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that a man who is married to a Ketanah (where the Kidushin is only mid'Rabanan since she is a minor) inherits the property of the Ketanah if she dies. In addition, he may be Metamei for her even if he is a Kohen. How, asks the Gemara, could the Rabanan enact that the husband inherit her, if mid'Oraisa her father inherits her? It must be that the Rabanan have the authority to uproot that which is written in the Torah.

The Gemara refutes this proof and says that the reason the husband, and not the father, inherits the Ketanah is *not* because the Rabanan uprooted that which is written in the Torah, but because of the principle of "Hefker Beis Din Hefker."

RASHI explains that when the Gemara says that mid'Oraisa the husband does not inherit the Ketanah but her "father" does, it cannot mean literally that in this case the father inherits his daughter, because the father is no longer living! The only time a girl becomes married mid'Rabanan is when she is a minor and her father died before marrying her off, and instead other members of her family marry her off. Rashi explains that the Gemara means that mid'Oraisa, the *relatives of* her father inherit her. (The same presumably applies to being Metamei for her. When the Gemara says that mid'Oraisa her father is Metamei for her, it cannot mean literally that her "father" is Metamei for her, since he is no longer living.)

REBBI AKIVA EIGER asks why Rashi has to say that the Gemara is referring to the father's relatives. We know that there is a concept of a "Yesomah b'Chayei ha'Av" -- it is possible for a Ketanah to get married while her father is still alive, and that Kidushin is only mid'Rabanan. This occurs in a case where the father already *married her* once to one husband, and then she was divorced and remarried someone else. When she was married to her first husband, she left the domain of her father and he is no longer able to marry her off (as RASHI himself explains: 2b, DH v'Chulan sh'Meisu, 12a DH Mishum, 107b DH Kol she'Yecholah).

Accordingly, why did Rashi here have to say that "her father" means her father's relatives? It could mean her father as well, in a case of "Yesomah b'Chayei ha'Av!"

ANSWER: The MISHNAH L'MELECH (Hilchos Avel 2:7) asks another question. The Gemara continues its attempt to prove that the Rabanan can uproot an Isur of the Torah from the Beraisa's statement that the husband of a Mema'enes may be Metamei for her. Since the Ketanah is married only mid'Rabanan, the Gemara points out, it is her father who may be Metamei for her mid'Oraisa, and yet the Rabanan enacted that her husband may be Metamei for her. The Gemara refutes this proof as well and says that the husband may indeed be Metamei for her mid'Oraisa, because the Mema'enes has the status of a Mes Mitzvah for whom a Kohen may be Metamei. She is a Mes Mitzvah because no one (other than the husband) will have an interest in burying her since it is the husband who inherits her.

Why does the Gemara introduce this proof by saying that "mid'Oraisa the father is Metamei for his daughter?" If the Gemara meant to say that the husband is not Metamei mid'Oraisa it should have stated just that; "Mid'Oraisa the *husband* is *not* Metamei" (without mentioning the father). It seems that the Gemara is saying that the Rabanan changed the Halachah as it is written in the Torah not only by giving the husband the responsibility to be Metamei, but by *taking away* from the father the responsibility to be Metamei (if she is a Yesomah b'Chayei ha'Av).

But where do we see that they took away the right to be Metamei from the father? What proof is there from this Beraisa that the father may no longer be Metamei for his daughter? *All* of her relatives should be obligated to bury her, including both her husband and her father! Even after she is married mid'Rabanan (or mid'Oraisa, for that matter), her father is obligated to be Metamei for her! (It is true that her brothers are not permitted to be Metamei for her after she is married, as the Torah states. A father, though, is Metamei for his daughter even if she is a Be'ulah, and thus the father should be Metamei for her in this case!)

The ARUCH LA'NER answers that when the Gemara says that the father is Metamei for her mid'Oraisa, it means that *if there would be a father*, he would be the only one who could be Metamei for her mid'Oraisa. In this case, though, since her father has died, *no* Kohen -- including her husband -- should be permitted to be Metamei for her mid'Oraisa. That is what the Gemara means when it says that mid'Oraisa her father is Metamei for her; mid'Oraisa not only her husband may not be Metamei for her, but *no* Kohen may. The Aruch la'Ner therefore concludes that the father of a Ketanah who is a "Yesomah b'Chayei ha'Av" *is* indeed obligated to be Metamei for her, even after the Rabanan enacted that the husband is (also) Metamei for her.

If what the Aruch la'Ner says is correct, it is indeed clear from the wording of the Gemara that the Ketanah we are discussing has no living father, as Rashi says, and she is *not* a "Yesomah b'Chayei ha'Av."

We can prove further that there is no father in this case from the fact that the Gemara says that if the husband would not bury her, there would be no one else to bury her, because the husband inherits her. Why would there be no one to bury her? The Torah obligates the father to bury her even if he receives no inheritance!

It must be that the Gemara is discussing a Ketanah that has no father. The husband of a "Yesomah b'Chayei ha'Av," though, might *not* be permitted to be Metamei for her, since she is not similar to a Mes Mitzvah (because her father is obligated mid'Oraisa to bury her). Rashi explains that the case of the Beraisa is when she has no father, because the discussion of the Gemara regarding the enactment that the husband may be Metamei for his wife who is a Ketanah implies that the Beraisa is indeed referring to a Ketanah who has no father. (M. Kornfeld)

Next daf


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