ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 13
YEVAMOS 13 - Dedicated by Sid and Sylvia Mosenkis of Queens, NY, in memory
of Sylvia's father, Shlomo ben Mordechai Aryeh, who passed away 3 Teves
(a) Rav Yehudah learns from the word "li'Tz'ror" - that, not only is the
Tzaras Ervah forbidden, but so is the Tzaras Tzarah (which he learns from
the extra 'Reish').
(b) Rav Ashi learns this from a S'vara - because the Tzarah is forbidden
seeing as she adopts the Chumra of her Tzarah. In that case, it stands to
reason that, should she marry one of the other brothers, she will transmit
the same Isur to her new Tzarah.
(a) Our Mishnah permits Tzaras Ervah, should the Ervah become divorced
before her husband's death, even if he married the Tzarah *before* divorcing
the Ervah, according to our Tana - because he holds 'Misah Mapeles' (it is
the death of the husband that causes the Yevamah to fall before his brothers
to Yibum - irrespective of what happened before).
(b) The Tana of the Mishnah in ha'Choletz, on the other hand, who permits
the Tzarah only if he married her *after* the divorce - holds 'Nisu'in
ha'Rishonim Mapilim' (it is the initial marriage that causes her to fall to
Yibum). Consequently, if he married her before he divorced the Ervah, she
immediately becomes a Tzaras Ervah.
(c) Rava establishes both Mishnayos according to the same Tana - by
explaining them as 'Zu, ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu' (our Mishnah teaches us
even the case when he married the Tzarah *before* the divorce, and the
Mishnah in ha'Choletz adds the more obvious case of when he married her
*after* the divorce); and both Mishnayos hold 'Misah Mapeles'.
(a) According to Rebbi Oshaya, a girl can only make Miy'un on the Yavam to
remove the *Ma'amar* that he made with her, but not to remove the *Zikah*.
We attempt to prove this from our Mishnah, which declares that the Tzarah of
any of the Arayos in our Mishnah, who could have made Miy'un but did not,
requires Chalitzah - implying that she cannot make Miy'un now (to remove the
(b) We refute this proof however - because the reason that she cannot make
Miy'un now is because she looks as if she is Tzaras Bito (like the Beraisa
of Rami bar Yechezkel - as we learned on Daf 12a.).
(a) The Tana now lists six cases which are more stringent than the fifteen
listed in the first Mishnah - because they are forbidden to any of the
(b) Consequently - the Tzarah is permitted to the Yavam.
(a) The first of these is Imo - meaning 'Imo Anusas Aviv' (Bartenura - it is
not clear why Rashi says 'Eishes Aviv').
(b) One of the remaining cases is Eishes Achiv me'Aviv - who is forbidden
to all the brothers because it speaks when they had children, in which case
there is no Mitzvah of Yibum.
(c) Besides his father's wife and sister (and the two cases that we just
discussed) - the list also incorporates his paternal sister and his father's
(a) The author of our Mishnah to date is Beis Hillel. Beis Shamai say that
Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel also displayed complete trust in one another -
in the area of Tum'os and Taharos, where they would lend each other their
household vessels, even though, in many instances, what the one declared
Tahor, the other considered Tamei.
1. ... Tzaros Ervah in general - are permitted to the brothers.
(b) Beis Hillel say that ...
2. ... a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Chalitzah - is forbidden
to marry a Kohen.
3. ... a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Yibum - is permitted to
marry a Kohen after the Yavam's death.
1. ... a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Chalitzah - is permitted
to marry a Kohen (because her Chalitzah is unnecessary and therefore
(c) According to Beis Hillel - the child of a Tzaras Ervah with whom the
Yavam performed Yibum is a Mamzer (like every product of Chayvei K'risus).
2. ... a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Yibum - is a Zonah, and
is therefore forbidden to marry a Kohen.
(d) Despite the fact that some of the women from Beis Shamai were Mamzeirim
according to Beis Hillel, Beis Hillel did not desist from marrying the
daughters of Beis Shamai - because they knew that Beis Shamai would inform
them if that was the case, and there was complete trust between them.
(a) Beis Shamai derive that Tzaras Ervah is permitted, from the Pasuk "Lo
Sihyeh Eishes ha'Meis ha'Chutzah le'Ish Zar" - teaching us that "Chutzah"
(an external woman, who is not related) may not marry anyone else (when she
is a Yevamah) 'mi'Ch'lal de'Ika P'nimis' (implying that there is an internal
one - an Ervah), and although the wife who is not an Ervah has a Tzarah who
is, the Torah nevertheless forbids her to marry anyone else other than the
Yavam, unless she first performs Chalitzah.
(b) Beis Hillel learn from that Pasuk - that the Kidushin of a Yevamah with
another man is *not* valid (like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav) even though it is
only a La'av, which generally *is*.
(c) Beis Shamai argue that the Torah does not write "ha'Chutz", but
"ha'Chutzah". Beis Hillel counter that - with the principle that whenever
the Torah places a 'Hey' at the end of a noun, it is as if it had written a
'Lamed' at the beginning (in which case "Chutzah" is no different than
"le'Chutz", leaving us with nothing to Darshen).
(a) In fact, we conclude, both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel learn that
Kidushin is not effective on a Yevamah le'Shuk, from the last words in the
Pasuk "le'Ish Zar". Beis Hillel learn from "ha'Chutzah" - that even a woman
who falls to Yibum from the betrothal (although she was not yet close to the
brother when he died) is also subject to Yibum.
(b) Beis Shamai learn this from the 'Hey' in "ha'Chutzah" - Beis Hillel do
not make any D'rashah from the 'Hey', which they do not consider
(c) Rava gives the reason of Beis Shamai as 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' -
meaning that the Isur of Eishes Ach does not take effect on the existing
Isur of Bito (or on any of the other fourteen Arayos). Consequently, the
Tzarah is the Tzarah of an Ervah she'Lo be'Makom Mitzvah, who is permitted
to the Yavam, as we learned above.
(d) The Tzarah is permitted even if the brother married the Ervah only after
the Yavam had married her sister, in which case the Ervah preceded that of
Eishes Achiv, for the reason that we just stated: that the Isur of Eishes
Ach (which takes effect only with the death of the brother (as we saw on
Amud Aleph) cannot come into effect because of the existing Ervah. The
Gemara however, misunderstood Rava, thinking that he was referring to those
Arayos that come through Kidushin, and that it is *those* Arayos (such as
Achos Ishah) that do not come into effect on the existing Eishes Ach.
(a) The Tana needs to say that, even if the Tzaros made Chalitzah, they are
nevertheless permitted to a Kohen - to preclude the opinion of Rebbi
Yochanan ben Nuri, who tried to institute Chalitzah for Tzaros Ervah, as we
shall soon see. Had he succeeded, the Chalitzah would have disqualified them
from marrying Kohanim.
(b) He sees fit to add 'Nisyabmu, Beis Shamai Machshirin ... ' - not because
it is necessary, but because, having told us the Din by 'Chaltzu', he
completed the picture by telling us the Din by 'Nisyabmu', too.
(a) Resh Lakish asked - how the Tana in the opening Mishnah in Megilah can
permit the reading of the Megilah on different days by different groups of
people, considering the principle not to break the laws of the Torah into
separate groups, some keeping it like this, and others, like that (which we
learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Sisgodedu" - 'Lo Sa'asu Agudos Agudos')?
(b) We learn from the fact that the Torah writes "Lo Sisgodedu", and not ...
1. ... "Lo Segodedu" - that this is not a prohibition to cut oneself because
someone died, but not to make groups ... .
2. ... "Lo Sagodu" - that the Pasuk is not *confined* to the latter, but
incorporates the former, too.
(a) Resh Lakish is not concerned about the Mishnah in Pesachim, which deals
with the custom not to work on Erev Pesach until midday, which some places
observe, and others do not - because the La'av is restricted to Halachos,
but not to Minhagim, by which the Torah does not forbid breaking up into
(b) Resh Lakish was not concerned about the Mishnah regarding working on the
previous night (Leil Bedikas Chametz), where some people follow the opinion
of Beis Shamai (who forbid) and others, that of Beis Hillel (who permit), a
Halachah, and not a Minhag - because there it does not resemble two Toros,
since someone who sees people not working, will automatically ascribe this
to the fact that they have no work to do (a common enough phenomenon),
rather than to a different opinion.
(c) Nor is he concerned with our Mishnah, where Beis Shamai permit Tzaras
Ervah, whereas Beis Hillel forbid her - because, in his opinion, Beis Shamai
only argued with Beis Hillel in theory, but not in practice.