POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Yevamos 40
1) WHICH IS PREFERRED, YIBUM OR CHALITZAH?
2) WHO INHERITS THE DECEASED?
1. Initially (before it was sanctified), it was
permitted; it became forbidden (when sanctified),
then again permitted (after part was offered on the
altar). One might think, it returns to the original
state of being permitted - "It will be eaten as
Matzos in a Holy place" - this is a Mitzvah.
(b) Question: According to R. Yitzchak Bar Avdimi, the
Beraisa is as Aba Sha'ul - what 2 types of eating are
2. We understand according to Rava, who says that the
Beraisa is as Chachamim. "It will be eaten as Matzos
in a Holy place - this is a Mitzvah;
i. Initially, it was permitted - he may eat it or
not. It became forbidden, then again permitted.
One might think, it returns to the original
state of being permitted, he may eat it or
ii. Question: How could one think so - "They will
eat them in which there is atonement" - this
teaches, Kohanim eat and the owner of the
sacrifice gets atonement!
iii. Answer: Rather, One would think, if he wants,
he eats; if not, another Kohen will eat - "It
will be eaten as Matzos in a Holy place" - it
is a Mitzvah (the Kohen should eat).
1. Suggestion: If you will say, he may eat with
appetite, or overeat to the point of nausea - is the
latter really considered eating?!
(c) Answer #1: Rather, he may eat it as Matzo or as Chametz.
i. (Reish Lakish): One who stuffs himself to
nausea on Yom Kipur has not transgressed "One
who will not afflict himself".
(d) Question: But it says, "Do not bake their portion
1. (Reish Lakish): Even the Kohanim's portion should
not be baked as Chametz.
(e) Answer #2: Rather, they may eat it as Matzos or scalded.
1. Question: What is the status of scalding?
i. If it is Matzah - of course they may be eaten
2. Answer: Really, it is Matzah. The Torah insisted
that proper Matzah be used.
ii. If it is not Matzah - but the Torah said, they
should be eaten as Matzah!
3. Question: For what law do we say that scalding is as
4. Answer: That a person fulfills with it the Mitzvah
to eat Matzah on Pesach.
i. Even though he first scalded it, since he later
baked it in an oven if is called bread of
poverty, and it may be used for the Mitzvah.
(a) (Mishnah): One who does Chalitzah to his Yevamah, is as a
regular brother regarding inheritance; if there is a
father, he inherits the deceased;
3) PROHIBITIONS THAT RESULT FROM CHALITZAH
(b) One who does Yibum inherits the deceased; R. Yehudah
says, in any case, if the father is alive, the
possessions are always his.
(c) (Gemara): This is obvious (that he is as a regular
(d) Answer #1: One might have thought, Chalitzah is in place
of Yibum, and he should inherit the deceased - the
Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
1. Objection: If so, why does it say, 'He is as one of
the brothers' - it should say, he is only as 1 of
(e) Answer #2 : Rather, one would think, since he prevented
her from doing Yibum, she should be punished - the
Mishnah teaches, this is not so.
(f) (Mishnah): If there is a father ...
1. A father inherits before any of his descendants.
(g) (Mishnah): One who does Yibum ...
1. The Torah said, "He will stand up on the name of his
brother - and behold, he stood up!
(h) (Ula): The law is as R. Yehudah.
1. (Ula): R. Yehudah learns from "And the firstborn
that she will bear" - just as a firstborn does not
receive in the father's lifetime, so one who does
(i) Question: We should say, when there is no father, and he
inherits the deceased, there is a Mitzvah of Yibum; when
there is a father, and he does not inherit his brother,
we should say there is no Mitzvah!
2. Question: If so - just as a firstborn receives a
double portion when the father dies, so to one who
3. Answer: It does not say, he will stand on the name
of his father; rather, "on the name of his brother".
(j) Answer: Yibum is not dependent on inheritance - he does
Yibum, and if he inherits, he inherits.
(k) R. Chanina: The law is as R. Yehudah.
1. R. Yanai: Do not teach thusly in the Beis Midrash -
the law is not as R. Yehudah.
2. A reciter of teachings taught in front of Rav
Nachman, the law is not as R. Yehudah.
3. Rav Nachman: Who is it as? Chachamim? That is
obvious, we rule as the majority!
4. The reciter: If so, I will discard this teaching.
5. Rav Nachman: Do not discard it. You were taught, the
law is as Chachamim. It was difficult to you, (why
must this be taught), so you switched it - you were
correct to do so.
(a) A Yavam does Chalitzah to his Yevamah. He is forbidden to
her relatives, and she is forbidden to his;
(b) He is forbidden to marry her mother, grandmothers,
daughter, granddaughters, and while she is alive, her
4) PROHIBITIONS AFTER CHALITZAH
(c) The brothers are permitted to her relatives; she is
forbidden to his father, his father's father, his son,
his son's son, his brother, and his brother's son;
(d) A man is permitted to the relative of the Tzarah of his
Chalutzah, bur forbidden to the Tzarah of the relative of
(e) (Gemara) Question: Did Chachamim decree Sheniyos by a
1. Did they only decree regarding Ervah, which is
mid'Oraisa - or did they not distinguish?
(f) (Mishnah): 'He is forbidden to her mother, grandmothers
...' but it does not list her mother's mother's mother!
(Apparently, we did not decree!)
(g) Rejection: This case was omitted because we wanted to
teach later, the brothers are permitted to them - if her
great grandmother was taught, I would think that the
brothers are forbidden to her mother and grandmother.
(h) Question: Let it teach, he is forbidden to her mother's
mother's mother. and the brothers are permitted to all of
1. This is left difficult.
(i) (Mishnah): She is forbidden to his father, his father's
1. Suggestion: She is forbidden to them on account of
the Choletz (the Yavam that did Chalitzah to her) -
because of the Chalitzah, she is considered the
daughter-in-law of the son of the Yavam's father's
father(this shows, we decreed Sheniyos by a
(j) (Mishnah): She is forbidden to (the Choletz's) son' son.
2. Rejection: No, on account of her deceased husband
(she is truly the daughter-in-law of the son of the
deceased's father's father).
1. Suggestion: On account of the Choletz, she is the
wife of his father's father!
(k) (R. Chiya): 4 are forbidden mid'Oraisa, and 4 mid'Rabanan
- his father, his son, his brother and his brother's son
mid'Oraisa; his father's father, his mother's father, the
son of his son, and the son of his daughter mid'Rabanan.
2. Rejection: No, on account of the deceased, she is
truly the wife of the brother of his father's
3. Question: But Ameimar says that the wife of the
brother of one's father's father is permitted!
4. Answer: Ameimar will explain that when the Mishnah
says *his* son's son, it refers to *his father's*
son's son (his father was mentioned before this).
5. Question: If so (by saying his son and his son's
son), the Mishnah forbids the Choletz's brother and
brother's son (which are explicitly forbidden right
6. Answer: The Mishnah teaches his paternal and
1. Suggestion: The father of his father - this is on
account of the Choletz, she is as his son's
daughter-in-law (a Sheniyah)!
2. Rejection: No, on account of the deceased (she truly
is his son's daughter-in-law).
3. Suggestion: The father of his mother - this is on
account of the Choletz, she is as his daughter's
daughter-in-law (a Sheniyah)!
4. Rejection: No, on account of the deceased.
5. Suggestion: The son of his son - this is on account
of the Choletz, she is as his father's father's wife
6. Rejection: No, on account of the deceased, she is as
the wife of the brother of his father's father.
i. Question: But Ameimar says that the wife of the
brother of one's father's father is permitted!
7. Suggestion: The son of his daughter - this is on
account of the Choletz, she is as the wife of his
mother's father (a Sheniyah)!
ii. Answer: Ameimar will say it is on account of
the Choletz; he must hold, we decreed Sheniyos
by a Chalutzah.
8. Rejection: No, on account of the deceased, she is
the wife of the brother of his mother's father.
9. Question: But the wife of the brother of one's
mother's father is permitted!
10. Answer: Rather, we must say, it is on account of
the Choletz - we did decree Sheniyos by a Chalutzah.
(a) (Rav Tuvi Bar Kisna): One that has relations with the
Tzarah of his Chalutzah, the child is a Mamzer.
1. This is because she retains the prohibition of a
(b) (Rav Yosef): Our Mishnah supports this - a man is
permitted to the relative of the Tzarah of his Chalutzah.
1. We understand, if the Tzarah has her original
prohibition - therefore, he may marry her sister.
(c) Suggestion: This refutes R. Yochanan!
2. If the Tzarah is as the Chalutzah - he should be
forbidden to her sister, (just as one is forbidden
to the sister of his Chalutzah)!
1. (R. Yochanan): Neither the Choletz nor his brothers
are liable to Kares for relations with the Chalutzah
or the Tzaros.
(d) Rejection: The sister of a Chalutzah is not forbidden
mid'Oraisa! (Therefore, even if the Tzarah is as the
Chalutzah, we need not say that the Choletz is forbidden
to her sister.)
1. (Reish Lakish): Rebbi taught in a Mishnah, the
sister of one's divorcee is forbidden mid'Oraisa,
the sister of one's Chalutzah is forbidden
2. Question: Why is the relative of the Tzarah of one's
Chalutzah permitted, but the Tzarah of the relative
of one's Chalutzah is forbidden?