ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 3
YEVAMOS 3 & 4 - dedicated by Dr. Eli Turkel (of Raanana) and family; may
they be blessed with much Nachas from their children and grandchildren.
(a) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...
1. ... "Heinah" "Heinah" (by Bito me'Ishto and Bito me'Anusaso) - that in
the same way as by Bito me'Ishto, his daughter is forbidden just like his
granddaughter (both of which *are* explicitly written in the Pasuk), so too,
is Bito me'Anusaso (which is *not* explicitly written) is forbidden just
like his granddaughter (which *is*).
(b) If, as we just suggested, the Tana prefers what is learned from a
D'rashah - then he ought to have placed Achos Ishto last (since it is the
only case which is not learned from a Derashah.
2. ... "Zimah" "Zimah" (from Chamoso) - that Bito me'Ishto carries a Chiyuv
(c) Neither will it help to say that the Tana did not do so in order to
include Achos Ishto together with the other cases of 'Achvasa', which appear
earlier - because then he should rather have rearranged the other cases of
Achvasa, to place them last together with Achos Ishto.
(a) We finally explain the order of our Mishnah - in order of closeness: 1.
his daughter and granddaughters - who are his own flesh and blood; 2. his
wife's daughter and granddaughters - because after mentioning *his*
relatives, it follows that the Tana mentions his *wife's* (corresponding
ones); 3. his mother-in-law, her mother and his father-in-law's mother -
because having mentioned three generations down from his wife, it follows
logically to mention the three corresponding generations upwards; 4. his
sister and mother's sister - who are his own blood relatives, before his
daughter-in-law, who is not; 5. his wife's sister - because she is also a
case of Achvasa, about whom e are currently speaking.
(b) The Tana ought to have placed Kalaso before Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah
be'Olamo and Eishes Achiv me'Imo - because, seeing as none of them are
blood-relatives, the Tana should have given preference to Kalaso, which is
the most stringent of them.
(c) He nevertheless inverts the order, placing Kalaso last - because the
other two are cases of Achvah (and therefore are more closely connected with
the previous cases of Achvasa).
(d) The Tana omits the case of Imo - because she is forbidden to all his
brothers because of Eishes Aviv (which is why she appears in the Mishnah on
(a) The Tana uses the Lashon 'Potros' and not 'Osros' - because 'Osros'
would imply that although she exempts the Tzarah from Yibum, she
nevertheless remains Chayav to perform Chalitzah (which she is not).
(b) In fact, the Tana could have said Asurah la'Ch'lotz - which is
forbidden, in case one comes to make Yibum.
(c) He nevertheless says 'Potros' and not 'Osros' - to make it clear that it
is only in the case of Yibum (when it was the *brother* who married them)
that the Tzaros of the fifteen women are forbidden, but not when someone
else married them.
(d) Someone who made Yibum with one of the Tzaros in our Mishnah would
transgress Eishes Achiv (as if he had children).
(a) We just explained that the Tana found it necessary to mention that they
are also exempt from Chalitzah, because we are afraid that if they are
required to perform Chalitzah, then maybe they will go on to perform Yibum.
(b) Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes applies to cases of Safek (see also Mahadura
(c) Our Mishnah places Chalitzah before Yibum - because it is learned by Aba
Shaul, who holds that the Mitzvah of Chalitzah precedes that of Yibum. This
is because he is afraid that the Yavam will make Yibum for an ulterior
motive, in which case it will be akin to transgressing Eishes Achiv she'Lo
be'Makom Mitzvah, and the child will be close to being a Mamzer (as we shall
see in Perek ha'Choletz es Yevimto).
(d) According to the Rabbanan - the Mitzvah of Yibum takes precedence over
that of Chalitzah.
(a) The Tana begins with 'Fifteen women' (even though we can count them
ourselves), and ends with 'Harei Eilu Potros ... ' to preclude 1. Rav - who
says that if a man had two wives, one of whom committed adultery (to become
a Sotah - who is forbidden to her husband) and her husband died without
children, then both she and her Tzarah are forbidden to the Yavam; 2. Rav
Asi - who says the same thing with regard to a man who had two wives, one of
whom was an Aylonis (that should he die without children, both women are
Patur from Yibum).
(b) According to Rav and Rav Asi, the Mishnah comes to preclude one or both
of (depending whether they hold like each other or not) Tzaras Mema'enes and
Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso. The case of ...
1. ... a Tzaras Mema'enes - is when the Yesomah who was married to his
deceased brother made Miy'un on the Yavam. Chazal forbade Yibum with the
Tzarah because of Tzaras Bito Mema'enes, who is forbidden because, at the
time when she fell to Yibum (before her Tzarah made Miy'un with her father),
she appeared to be Tzaras Bito.
2. ... a Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso - is when his brother divorced his wife,
and re-married her (be'Isur) after someone else had married her and died.
(c) The Tana of our Mishnah does not include them - because, seeing as the
Isur is only mi'de'Rabbanan, the Tzarah is Chayav to perform Chalitzah
(whereas all the cases in our Mishnah are Patur from Chalitzah, too, as we
explained on Amud Aleph).
(d) According to Rav and Rav Asi (who hold that Tzaras Mema'enes and Machzir
Gerushaso are Patur from Chalitzah, too), the Tana does not insert Tzaras
Sotah and Tzaras Aylonis in our Mishnah - because Tzaras Tzarah, which
applies to all the cases in our Mishnah, will not apply to them (seeing as
both Sotah and Aylonis are forbidden to all the brothers, none of whom are
therefore permitted to marry them.
(a) We learn from ...
1. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yevamah Yavo *Alehah*" "ve'Ishah el Achosah Lo
Sikach li'Tz'ror *Alehah* be'Chayehah" - that just as the former speaks in
place of a Mitzvah, so too, does the latter; and still the Pasuk writes "Lo
Sikach", to teach us that one cannot perform Yibum with Achos Ishah (even
though it is a Mitzvah).
(b) We learn that the other fourteen cases in our Mishnah are Asur to the
Yavam by means of a Binyan Av from Achos Ishah. They are all similar to
Achos Ishah - inasmuch as they, like she, are Arayos, are Chayav Kareis
be'Meizid and Chatas be'Shogeg.
2. ... "li'Tz'ror" (from the extra Reish) - that Tzaras Tzarah is forbidden,
just like Tzaras Ervah herself (and so too, any number of Tzaros of Tzaros).
(a) If one of the six Arayos listed in the next Mishnah (on Daf 13a: mother,
father's wife, father's sister, maternal sister, father's brother's wife and
paternal brother's wife) married someone else (not one's brother), and her
husband died - one would be permitted to marry their Tzarah if their
husband died, because, unlike all the cases in the first Mishnah, they are
forbidden to *all* the brothers, and it is only when she falls to all the
brothers and is forbidden to him alone, that the Tzarah is forbidden.
If not for the Pasuk "Alehah", Achos Ishah would have been included in the
Din of Yibum. We immediately refute the suggestion that this is because of
the principle 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' - on the grounds that an Asei can
only override an ordinary La'av, but who says that it can also override a
La'av which carries with it Kareis (like that of Achos Ishah).
(b) She is not forbidden because of Tzaras Ervah - because it is the Isur
Ach which makes her a Tzaras Ervah). When however, she is forbidden to *all*
the brothers because of another Ervah, then the Tzarah is permitted.
(c) We now know the Isur of making Yibum with an Ervah or a Tzaras Ervah
from "li'Tz'ror" - and we learn the punishment from the Pasuk there "Ki Chol
Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'To'eivos ha'Eileh ... ve'Nichresu ... ".