(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 10

YEVAMOS 10 (Chanukah) - has been sponsored through the donation of Alex and Helen Gross of Rechavya, Jerusalem; may the light of the Torah always light their home and the homes of their descendants!



(a) We just concluded that Rav and Rebbi Chiya include Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo in our Mishnah, despite the fact that 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh Muteres la'Zeh' regarding it, only applies according to Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi, who does not include any case that involves Machlokes in our Mishnah, disagrees with Rebbi Chiya's K'lalim.

(b) Rav Ada Karchina quoting Rava reconciles Rebbi with Rav and Rebbi Chiya by explaining Rebbi's displeasure with Levi's original query (Why the Tana did not insert a sixteenth case) differently. According to him, Rebbi was displeased with Levi - on the grounds that either half of Rebbi Chiya's statement (va'Achosah she'Hi Yevimtah ... ha'Asurah la'Zeh, Muteres la'Zeh') will apply to Imo Anusas Aviv, but not both simultaneously.

(c) If Ya'akov raped ...

1. ... two sisters - then 'Achosah she'Hi Yevimtah' will apply, but not 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh, Muteres la'Zeh', since both sisters are forbidden to both brothers, one because of Imo, the other, because of Achos ha'Eim.
2. ... two strangers - then 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh, Muteres la'Zeh' will apply, but not 'Achosah she'Hi Yevimtah ... '.
(a) According to Rav Ashi, Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Chiya anyway; nor is he concerned about the Tana getting involved in a Machlokes. Rebbi dismissed Levi's query - because Imo Anusas Aviv cannot be inserted in our Mishnah according to Rebbi Yehudah, who is the author of our Mishnah, as we shall now see.

(b) He (Rav Ashi) infers from the next Mishnah, which says 'Sheish Arayos Chamuros me'Eilu Mipnei she'Hein Nesu'os la'Acheirim ... Imo', that the author must be Rebbi Yehudah. We know that the Mishnah is speaking about Imo *Anusas* Aviv - because the alternative would be *Eishes* Aviv, who is mentioned there independently.

(c) He infers from there 'Mipnei she'Hein Nesu'os la'Acheirim', 'la'Acheirim In, le'Achim Lo', proving that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids Anusas Aviv.

(a) We refute Ravina's Kashya that maybe our Mishnah speaks about his mother whom his father had raped, and whom his brother married - illegally, in which case the author could even be Rebbi Yehudah - with the principle 'de'I Lo Katani' (our Tana does not deal with cases of Bedieved).

(b) Rav Ashi asked Rav Kahana that it is possible to establish Anusas Aviv in our Mishnah according to Rebbi Yehudah, even without his brother having performed a sin - in a case where his father raped the wife of his son Reuven who bore a son, Shimon. Then Reuven died and his wife fell to Shimon to Yibum.

(c) Rav Kahana answered him - that our Mishneh is speaking about a brother who was born be'Heter, and not one who was born be'Isur.

(d) Levi did not concede to Rebbi that it is impossible to insert Imo Anusas Aviv in our Mishnah - as we shall now see.




(a) Levi writes in his Mishnah, that sometimes Imo does not exempt her Tzarah from Yibum, and sometimes, she does. She does ...
1. ... not exempt her - if she was *married* to his father, before his brother 'married' her, because his brother's Kidushin was not valid (since 'Kidushun with a Chiyuv Kareis is not valid), so she did not in fact, fall to Yibum.
2. ... exempt her - if his father only raped her, because then, his brother's Kidushin is valid, in which case, she does fall to Yibum, from which she is exempt, and therefore exempts her Tzarah.
(b) Levi lists sixteen cases, in spite of Rebbi - in the latter case, when his brother sinned by marrying the woman that his father had raped (in spite of the fact that she was forbidden to him, according to Rebbi Yehudah).

(c) He argues with Rebbi - inasmuch he does learn 'de'I' in the Mishnah, whereas Rebbi does not.

(a) Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan that according to Levi, who learns de'I, the Tana could also have inserted the case of a brother who betrothed his Yevamah after having performed Chalitzah with her. Rebbi Yochanan replied - that the Tana could not possibly have inserted this in our Mishnah, because her Tzarah is forbidden to all the brothers, in which case, it is not subject to Tzaras Tzarah.

(b) According to his personal opinion, Rebbi Yochanan could have replied - that seeing as there is only a La'av on a Chalutzah, the brothers could even perform Yibum with her (min ha'Torah), and is certainly obligated to perform Chalitzah (even mi'de'Rabbanan), so it certainly does not belong in our Mishnah.

(c) He did not do so however - in order to answer Resh Lakish on his (Resh Lakish's) terms.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk " ... Asher Lo Yivneh es Beis Achiv" - that a Chalutzah is forbidden on the brother who performed Chalitzah with her.

(b) Resh Lakish learns from here - that the Torah exempts the brother who performed Chalitzah from Kareis, and the Yevamah with whom Chalitzah was performed, commuting it to an Asei, but as far as other brothers and the Tzarah is concerned, the Isur Kareis remains.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Resh Lakish, both as regards the Tzarah and as regards the other brothers vis-a-vis the Yevamah herself - on the grounds that initially, any of the brothers could have performed Chalitzah, with either of the women, so how can only the two who actually performed Yibum be Patur from Kareis, and all the rest, Chayav?

(d) He views the Chalitzah of that particular brother with that particular Tzarah - as a Sh'lichus on behalf of all of the brothers and the other Tzarah.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa rules that if one of the brothers performed Chalitzah with the Yevamah, subsequently betrothed her and died, she requires Chalitzah from one of the remaining brothers. According to Resh Lakish - she ought to be Patur completely.

(b) When Rebbi Yochanan asked Resh Lakish this Kashya, Resh Lakish retorted from the Seifa, which says 'Amad Echad min ha'Achin ve'Kid'shah, Ein Lah Alav K'lum' - which we understand to mean that Kidushin does take effect (so she does not require a Get), because Kidushin is not effective on Chayvei K'risus. According to Rebbi Yochanan however, this is a case of Kareis, but just a La'av, on which Kidushin is effective.

(c) We establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Akiva - who maintains that Kidushin does not take effect on Chayvei La'avin either; whereas according to the Rabbanan, she would indeed require a Get.

(d) This answer is not so good, however - because then the Tana should have said 'le'Divrei Rebbi Akiva, Ein Lah Alav K'lum'.

Next daf


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