(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 12

YEVAMOS 11 & 12 (2 & 3 Teves) - the Dafyomi study for the last day of Chanukah and 3 Teves has been dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav Yisrael Zev Gustman ZaTZaL (author of "Kuntresei Shiurim") and his wife (on her Yahrzeit), by a student who merited to study under him.



(a) We try to resolve Rebbi *Yochanan's* She'eilah (regarding whether a Machzir Gerushaso [according to the *second* Lashon] or her Tzarah [according to the *first*] are subject to Yibum), from the same *Mishnah* that we quoted in trying to resolve Rav *Yehudah's*: 'Haysah Achas Kesheirah, ve'Achas Pesulah, Im Hayah Choletz, Choletz li'Pesulah, ve'Im Hayah Meyabem, Meyabem li'Kesheirah' - resolving the She'eilah according to both Leshonos.

(b) We also try to resolve it from the same *Beraisa* as we quoted there. We reject this however, just as we rejected it there, and the She'eilah remains unresolved.

(a) If a woman makes Miy'un on her Yavam, the other brothers may perform Yibum ...
  1. ... with her Tzarah, and even ...
  2. ... with her.
(b) The reason for the latter Din is (basically, because the Miy'un uproots the Zikah, so that she is no longer Eishes Achiv, and) - because they did not perform an act with her.

(c) Shmuel declares Tzaras Mema'enes to be forbidden to the brother on whom her Tzarah made Miy'un (despite the fact that he did not perform an act with her either) - because it is similar to Tzaras Bito Mema'enes, who is forbidden (even after the Miy'un), because, at the time when she fell to Yibum, she appeared to be Tzaras Bito.

(d) According to Shmuel, when our Mishnah says 've'Chulan, Im ... *Miy'anu* O Nisgarshu, Tzaroseihen Mutaros' - it is on the husband that she made Miy'un (and not on the Yavam). This is indeed similar to 'Nisgarshu', but the Tana mentions two kinds of Geirushin.

3) The above Din is rooted in the Beraisa learned by Rami bar Yechezkel., which declares that if a girl makes Miy'un on her husband, she is permitted to his father, whereas if, after her husband died, she made Miy'un to her Yavam, she is forbidden to him - because at the time that she fell to Yibum, she appeared to be his daughter-in-law.


(a) Rav Asi learns from the Pasuk "ve'Hayah ha'Bechor *Asher Teiled*" - that an Aylonis (who cannot have children) is not subject to Yibum, which means that she is Asur to the Yavam because of Eishes Achiv, exempting her Tzarah from Yibum too.

(b) A barren woman is called an Aylonis - because she is like a ram (a male who cannot have children).

(a) Ma'amar is the Kidushin (mi'de'Rabbanan) that a Yavam needs to make with his Yevamah before performing Yibum.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "u'Meis *Achad* Meihem, Yevamah Yavo Alehah" - that a Yavam who made Ma'amar with his Yevamah, and died, leaving her and another wife to his brother, the remaining brother cannot make Yibum with her, because a Yavam only performs Yibum with a woman who has the Zikah of *one* Yavam, but not one who has the Zikah of *two*. (The Tzarah cannot perform Yibum either, because she is like a Tzaras Ervah).

(c) Both Tzaros require Chalitzah - because in fact, they have fallen from two different brothers (since the Ma'amar de'Rabbanan will not remove the Zikah that remains from the first brother).

(a) Rebbi Yossi (see Mesores ha'Shas) concludes that this is the only case where the Isur Nefilah causes her to be Asur. We refute the contention that Rebbi Yossi means to preclude Tzaras Aylanis, who is *permitted* (disproving Rav Asi, who, we just saw, forbids Tzaras Aylonis) - by explaining that he means to preclude Tzaras Aylanis, who is *forbidden* (and does not require Chalitzah either - which in fact, proves Rav Asi right).

(b) Despite the fact that both of the above cases are Asur even though there is no Isur Ervah, the case in the Beraisa is Chayav Chalitzah because the P'tur Yibum is only mi'de'Rabbanan (and the Pasuk that the Tana quotes is only an Asmachta) - whereas that of Rav Asi is Patur even from Chalitzah, because she is Patur mi'd'Oraysa (from the Pasuk "Asher Teiled").

(c) Our Mishnah, which explicitly states 've'Chulan, Im ... Miy'anu ... Tzaroseihen Mutaros' speaks when at the time that he married his wife, he did not know that she was an Aylonis (in which case, the Kidushin later becomes nullified retroactively) - whereas Rav Asi speaks when he knew that she was an Aylonis when they got married.

(d) We prove this from the Lashon of the Mishnah, which says 've'Chulan ... O *she'Nimtze'u* Aylonis', implying that he did not know it previously, and that if he did, the Tzarah would remain Asur).




(a) Rava disagrees with Rav Asi. According to him - a Tzaras Aylonis is permitted even if he *did* know beforehand that she was an Aylonis (because he disagrees with Rav Asi's D'rashah on "Asher Teiled").

(b) He dispenses with the inference that we just brought from the Lashon of our Mishnah 'she'Nimtze'u Aylonis' (that if he knew that she was an Aylonis, the Tzarah would remain Asur) - by amending 'she'Nimtze'u' to 've'Hayu'.

(c) Rava's reason is - because, seeing as even if she would not be considered an Ervah, she would not be fit to perform Yibum, she is like a Tzaras Ervah she'Lo be'Makom Mitzvah, who does not exempt her Tzarah from Yibum, as we learned earlier.

(d) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he brought with him a series of rulings from Rebbi Yochanan - who ruled that the Yavam may perform Yibum with the Tzarah of a Mema'enes, an Aylonis and a Machzir Gerushaso.

(a) A Ketanah, a pregnant woman and a feeding mother are permitted to use a cloth to avoid becoming pregnant, according to Rebbi Meir (in the opinion of Tosfos DH 'Shalosh, they are even obligated to do so). This is because ...
1. ... a Ketanah - might become pregnant, in which case she is in danger of dying.
2. ... a pregnant woman - might become pregnant again, and the second fetus will squash the first one and kill it.
3. ... a feeding mother - might become pregnant, and will wean her baby prematurely due to her pregnancy.
(b) A Ketanah constitutes the ages of eleven and twelve (because before eleven, she cannot become pregnant, and after twelve, she is not in danger of dying).

(c) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Meir - in the case of a Ketanah. Let her be Meshamesh normally, they say, and Hashem will look after her (because of the Pasuk in Tehilim "Shomer Pesa'im Hashem").

(a) We deduce from the Lashon 'Shema Tis'aber *ve'Shema* Tamus' - that it is possible for a Ketanah to become pregnant and not die.

(b) In that case, we ask - we can have a case of a mother-in-law making Miy'un (if someone married her baby daughter whom she bore when she was eleven, after which she made Miy'un still before turning twelve). But this clashes with our Mishnah, which says 'I Ata Yachol Lomar ba'Chamoso ... she'Nimtze'u Aylonis O she'Mema'enes'.

(c) To avoid this problem - we amend the Beraisa to read 'Shema Tis'aber ve'Tamus'.

(d) This also conforms with the words of Rabah bar Liva'i - who says that before the age of eleven, a girl cannot become pregnant, from eleven to twelve, she can, but she and the baby will die; whereas from the age of twelve, both she and the baby will live.

(a) This amendment is not acceptable however, according to the text of Rabah bar Shmuel, who adds to the wording in our Mishnah 'I Ata Yachol Lomar ba'Chamoso ... she'Nimtze'u Aylonis O she'Mema'enes' - *'she'Kvar Yaldu'* (even though, from the fact that he did not say 'she'Kvar Gadlu', it clearly speaks when she is still a Ketanah).

(b) According to Rav Safra, a Ketanah who bore a child and did not die, cannot make Miy'un - because bearing children even before coming of age, is as good a sign of Gadlus as Simanim [two hairs together with coming of age, that normally serve as a sign of Gadlus].

(c) In the second Lashon, children are even better than Simanim (two hairs) according to Rebbi Yehudah - because they prove that she is a Gedolah (who can *no longer make Miy'un*), whereas if she just brought Simanim, she *could*, until a lot of hair grows.

(d) Rav Z'vid holds 'Ein Banim be'Lo Simanim' - meaning that a girl who gave birth must have brought Simanim, and once she brings Simanim she can no longer make Miy'un (even if she is still a Ketanah. According to Rav Safra 'Toch ha'Z'man ke'Lifnei ha'Z'man', and Simanim that appear before a Katan comes of age, do *not* transform him into a Gadol - whereas Rav Z'vid holds 'Toch ha'Z'man ke'le'Achar ha'Z'man', and they *do*.

(a) Examining her to see if there are Simanim or not, will not achieve anything - because we suspect that the hairs may have fallen out.

(b) Even those who do not normally contend with the possibility that the Simanim may have fallen out, will agree in this case that we do - because the birth-pains may have caused them to do so.

Next daf


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