(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 17

YEVAMOS 17 & 18 - these Dafim have been sponsored by Joseph Goldberg, of Zichron Yakov, Israel.


1) The Navi in Melachim 2 lists the various towns to which Shalmaneser (alias Sancheiriv) led the Jewish captives (from the ten tribes). When Rebbi Yochanan comments on this 've'Chulan li'P'sul' - he means that they were from the ten tribes who had intermarried with Nochri women, and who had subsequently indulged in incest with their own closest relatives (though it is unclear why Rashi adds this, seeing as Rav Asi appears to hold that the child of a Jew and a Nochris is a Mamzer. See also Maharshal).


(a) Until now, we have been quoting the words of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi. After Rav Asi's death - Rav Yehudah went to learn with Shmuel. (This is difficult however, in view of what we have learned in other places, that Rav Yehudah learnt by Rav, and it was after *his* death that he went to learn by Shmuel.)

(b) Shmuel commented that, based on the Pasuk "Ki Yasir es Bincha mei'Acharai" - it is the Nochri who takes his Jewish son (who is born from his Jewish wife) away from Judaism, to worship idols, but not the Nochri woman, regarding her Nochri son (who is born from her Jewish husband). So we see that the child goes after the mother concerning his Jewishness.

(c) Children born to a Jewish woman who intermarries - are Jewish, as we just explained. Shmuel was not concerned about *them* being Mamzeirim however, because of the tradition that the women of that generation became barren and were unable to bear children.

(d) In the second Lashon, Shmuel quoted the Pasuk "ba'Hashem Bagdu, Ki Banim Zarim Yaladu" - from which he Darshened that the Chachamim of that time declared them all to be complete Nochrim.

(a) Rav Kahana said - that Yisrael would celebrate when Tarmud was destroyed.

(b) We initially explain the misunderstanding that Tarmud had been destroyed already, by establishing that as relating to Tamud, and not Tarmud. Alternatively, Rav Ashi explained that it was indeed Tarmud that was destroyed, but that for some reason, it tended to be destroyed on one side, following which they would go and build it up on the other side.

(a) When Rav Hamnuna asked him many questions in the course of his Shiur, Ula commented - that Rav Hamnuna would be a great man if not for the fact that he came from Harpanya (because they were not Meyuchasim - though it is not clear why that should detract from his greatness).

(b) As a matter of fact, Rav Hamnuna was not from Harpanya at all, because, as Ula himself concluded - since he paid taxes to Pum Nahara, he was considered a Pum Naharian.

(c) Harpanya is the acronym of 'Har (she'ha'Kol) Ponin (Bo)' - the mountain to which everyone turns (meaning that any Pasul person who could not find a wife would go there, because he knew that he would succeed in finding one there).

(d) When Rava said that it was deeper than Gehinom, he meant - that it was worse than Gehinom, inasmuch as Gehinom does not last forever (as the Navi Hoshei'a writes - "mi'Yad She'ol Efdeim"), whereas there is no escape for the Pesulim of Harpanya.

(a) 'P'sulei de'Harpanya Mishum P'sulei de'Mishon, P'sulei de'Mishon Mishum P'sulei de'Tarmud' means - that because Harpanya is close to Mishon, the Pesulim of Mishon spill over into Harpanya, and the same goes for the Pesulim of Tarmud, who spill over into Mishon.

(b) The source of the P'sulim of Tarmud - was the slaves of Shlomoh, as we learned above.

(c) 'Kaba Rabah ve'Kabah Zuta' means - that the one is a larger measure than the other: from Gehinom (the smaller measure), the P'sulim fall into Tarmud, from Tarmud, into Mishon and from Mishon, into Harpanya (see also Agados Maharsha).

***** Hadran Alach Chameish-Esrei Nashim *****

***** Perek Keitzad *****

(a) The case of Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo who exempts her Tzarah from Yibum is - when one of two brothers dies, and, after a third brother is born, the live brother, who already has a wife, performs Yibum with his deceased brother's wife; the first wife is exempt because she is an Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo, the second wife, because she is a Tzarah.

(b) If the second brother had made Ma'amar with her, but had not yet managed to perform Yibum, when he died, and she falls to the third brother - he is obligated to perform Chalitzah, but not Yibum.

(c) A Yevamah with whom Ma'amar has been done - is a Tzaras Ervah be'Miktzas mi'de'Rabbanan.




(a) Some refer to Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo (when she falls to the younger brother to Yibum for the second time) as 'Rishonah', others as 'Sh'niyah'; 'Rishonah' - because she was the first to fall to Yibum.

(b) It is wrong to refer to her as 'Sh'niyah' because she was the second to marry the second brother (before he died) - because who said that that is the case? Perhaps he performed Yibum with her before marrying the Tzarah?

(c) In fact, she is referred to as 'Sh'niyah' - because she has been married twice (once to her first husband, and once to the Yavam).

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Ki Yeishvu Achim Yachdav" - that Yibum only applies to brothers who lived at the same time, but not when the one was born after the other one died.

(a) He also learns from "Yachdav" that they share their father's inheritance, to preclude a *maternal* brother from Yibum. Rabah learns this latter D'rashah from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - from "Achvah" ("Ki Yeishvu Achim ... ") "Achvah" ("Sh'neim-Asar Achim B'nei Avinu" written in Mikeitz, by the B'nei Ya'akov).

(b) We reject the suggestion to *include* maternal brothers from "Achvah" "Achvah" from the Parshah of the Arayos, where the Torah writes "Ervas Achicha ... " (incorporating both a paternal brother and a maternal one) - because we learn "Achim" from "Achim", but not "Achim" from "Achicha".

(c) We refute the Kashya on this rejection from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Shav" "u'Ba", from which we see that even different words can form a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because that only applies if there is no alternative place to learn it from, but if, for example, there is a choice between learning "Achim" from "Achim", or "Achim" from "Achicha", we will naturally choose the former, because they are more similar.

(d) We reject the suggestion of learning the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Lot, where the Torah in Lech-Lecha also uses the word "Ki Anashim *Achim* Anachnu", because it is not Mufneh (superfluous), whereas "Achim" of the B'nei Ya'akov *is* (since the Torah could have written "Sh'neim-Asar Avadecha B'nei Avinu"). Had we learned from Lot then, when the wife of one's father's brother dies, she too, would require Yibum.

(a) We conclude that in fact, "Achim" by Lot is also superfluous (since the Torah could have written "Rei'im" instead), and that the Torah actually writes "Yachdav" to preclude from the possibility of learning from Lot. Nevertheless, in spite of "Yachdav", we still need the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Achvah" "Achvah" (from the B'nei Ya'akov) - to preclude from the contention that Yibum should be restricted to a brother from both one's father and one's mother's side.

(b) Despite the fact that the Torah connects Yibum to inheritance (inasmuch as the Yavam inherits his brother's property), we would nevertheless have even thought that only a brother who is both paternal and maternal can perform Yibum - to minimize the tremendous Chidush (of permitting an Ervah) to its barest minimum.

(a) We extrapolate from Rav, who says that if a Shomeres Yavam dies, the Yavam is permitted to marry her mother - that he holds 'Ein Zikah' (meaning that the tie with a Yavam is no more than an obligation, but that it does not make the Yevamah into an Arusah). Otherwise, the mother would be forbidden to the Yavam because of Chamoso (who does not become permitted after his wife's death).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah (in Perek ha'Choletz) says that if a Yavam betrothed his Yevamah's sister, leaving his brother to perform Yibum with the Yevamah - we tell him to wait until Yibum has indeed been performed (and the Zikah removed), before marrying the sister, because she is Achos Zekukaso (because he holds 'Yesh Zikah').

(c) We extrapolate from Shmuel, who says 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, that the Rabbanan disagree - and say that he may marry her immediately, because they hold 'Ein Zikah'.

(d) The reason that Rav did not simply rule like the Rabbanan is - because the Rabbanan say 'Ein Zikah' when there are two Yevamin (just like a woman cannot be betrothed to two brothers, or even to two strangers); whereas Rav's ruling even applies to a case when there is only one Yavam.

(a) Rebbi Akiva (in Perek Arba'ah Achim) says - that a Yavam may not nullify his Yevamah's Nedarim, irrespective of whether there are two Yevamim or just one (because he holds 'Ein Zikah' - even by one Yavam).

(b) The reason that Rav did not simply rule like Rebbi Akiva is - because then we would have thought that he even permits the Yavam to marry the Yevamah's mother, even whilst the Yevamah is still alive (before he has performed Chalitzah, thereby nullifying the Mitzvah of Yibum altogether (since the Yevamah would then become an Ervah); whereas in fact, this is something that Rav does not permit.

(c) We initially infer from the Mishnah in ha'Choletz: 'Yevimto she'Meisah, Mutar ba'Achosah' - 'ba'Achosah In, be'Imah, Lo' (which seems to clash with Rav's ruling).

(d) We answer that the Tana writes 'Mutar ba'Achosah' (rather than 'be'Imah'), because of the Reisha - which says 'Ishto she'Meisah, Mutar ba'Achosah' (where it is correct to extrapolate 'ba'Achosah In, be'Imah, Lo').

(a) Rav Yehudah says 'Shomeres Yavam she'Meisah, Asur be'Imah', because he holds 'Yesh Zikah'. The reason that we initially give for not simply ruling like those who say 'Yesh Zikah' is - because we would have thought that his ruling is confined to a case of when there is only *one* Yavam, but not when there are *two* (which is not the case).

(b) We reject that answer however, on the grounds that the Machlokes Tana'im concerns a case where there are *two* Yevamin, so how could we possibly have thought that Rav Yehudah is riling in a case where there is only *one*. The real reason that Rav Yehudah did not say Halachah ke'Divrei ha'Omer 'Yesh Zikah' is - because we would then have confined his ruling to when the Yevamah is still alive, but, when she dies, the Zikah dissipates, and the Yavam will become permitted to marry her relations. Therefore Rav Yehudah found it necessary to issue the ruling the way he did, to teach us that the Zikah does not dissipate.

Next daf


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