(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 35

YEVAMOS 35 (26 Teves) - dedicated towards the support of Kollel Iyun Hadaf in memory of Rochel Chava bas Yitzchok Leib (on her Yahrzeit) by her son, Yaakov Wollner of Baltimore.



(a) We reconcile Shmuel (who says that we decree a Ketanah - forbidding her to marry for three months after a Bi'as Z'nus) with our Mishnah, which says 'Im Hayu Ketanos she'Einan Re'uyos Leiled, Machzirin Osan Miyad' - by establishing our Mishnah as a Hora'as Sha'ah (a ruling that applies only to the case of the Mishnah), because it is uncommon to switch wives during the Chupah.

(b) This does not mean that that case actually occured - but that they ruled there leniently, as if it had.

(a) According to the second Lashon in Shmuel - the Tana is referring to a Giyores and Meshuchreres who are *Gedolos* (but all Ketanos are permitted to return to their husbands immediately).

(b) Once again - Shmuel is speaking about Z'nus, but not through Miy'un or a Get (as we explained on the previous Amud).

(c) Chazal, according to Shmuel, did not decree on a Giyores and Meshuchreres who are Gedolos, despite the fact that Z'nus by them is common - because he holds like Rebbi Yossi, in whose opinion, Chazal did not decree waiting three months after a Bi'as Z'nus at all.


1. Rebbi Yehudah says that (even) a Giyores, a Shevuyah (a captive who has been set free) and a Meshuchreres - must wait three months before marrying.
2. Rebbi Yossi holds - that no woman who committed Z'nus ever needs to wait three months.
(a) Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yossi - by the three cases mentioned in the Beraisa (where even when they are married they need to protect themselves before converting); but he does not rule like him - by an ordinary Yisre'eilis who committed Z'nus, on whom he decrees on account of a married one (who has no reason to protect herself).

(b) Rabah initially ascribes Rebbi Yossi's lenient viewpoint - to the fact that before a woman commits adultery, she protects herself by having a cloth handy, which she either wears during the act or uses afterwards to wipe away the Zera (see Rashi and Tosfos 11b.).

(c) Most cases of Giyores, Shevuyah and Meshuchreres might anticipate the impending change and walk around with a cloth to safeguard themselves. This would not apply however - to a Shifchah who went free, because her master knocked out her tooth or her eye (seeing as she could not possibly have anticipated this happening, and that she would go free; so how would she have a cloth handy?)

(d) Abaye (who asked the question) therefore ascribes Rebbi Yossi's leniency by Z'nus to the fact that a woman who commits Z'nus generally turns over after Bi'ah, in order to destroy the Zera, to avoid becoming pregnant.

(a) The problem with our Mishnah, which says 've'Im Hayu Kohanos, Nifselu min ha'Terumah' is - that, seeing as we are talking about becoming Pasul from eating Terumah, the woman must be the wife of a Kohen, in which case, why should she need to be a Kohenes (the daughter of a Kohen), since the same will apply to the daughter of a Yisre'eilis?

(b) We try to amend the Mishnah to read 've'Im Hayu Neshei Kohanim ... ', but refute this answer on the basis of Rav Amram quoting Rav Sheishes - who says that even the wife of a *Yisrael* becomes disqualified from marrying a Kohen through a Bi'as O'nes should her husband die (so why confine the Din to the wife of a Kohen)?

(c) Rava therefore amends our Mishnah to read that - if they were Kohanos who were married to a Yisrael, they would become Pasul from the Terumah of their father's house, should their husband die.

***** Hadran Alach Arba'ah Achin *****



***** Perek ha'Choletz li'Yevimto *****


(a) If the Yavam performed Chalitzah, and the Yevamah is then found to be pregnant, and subsequently gives birth, should she give birth to ...
1. ... a healthy baby - they will permitted to marry each other's relatives, and she, to marry a Kohen.
2. ... a still-born baby - then they will be forbidden to marry each other's relatives and she, to marry a Kohen.
(b) If, instead of Chalitzah, he performs Yibum with her and she then gives birth ...
1. ... to a healthy baby - he *will* be obligated to send her away, and to bring a Korban Chatas.
2. ... to a still-born baby - he will be permitted to retain her and will not be required to bring a Chatas.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan holds that if a Yavam makes Chalitzah with a pregnant Yevamah, who subsequently loses her baby, she does not require Chalitzah from the brothers. Resh Lakish says - that she does.

(b) The same Machlokes will apply to a Yevamah with whom the Yavam performed Yibum under similar circumstances.

(c) The logical basis of their Machlokes - is that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, if Eliyahu were to come and inform us that the baby would be a still-born, would she not be subject to Chalitzah or Yibum immediately? So why should it be any different, if they actually performed Chalitzah or Yibum, and the baby subsequently turned out to be a still-born? whereas Resh Lakish maintains that Chalitzah and Yibum cannot work retroactively.

(d) They also learn their respective views from the Pasuk "u'Vein Ein Lo" - which Rebbi Yochanan explains to mean that if he has no son, they may perform Yibum or Chalitzah; whereas Resh Lakish Darshens "Ein Lo" 'Ayein Alav' ('Examine him' to see whether the Yevamah is not pregnant; if she is, then Yibum is forbidden).

(a) Resh Lakish explains that our Mishnah, which states that if, after the Chalitzah, the Yevamah gave birth to a still-born baby, both the Yavam and the Yevamah are forbidden to marry each other's relatives and the Yevamah is Pasul from marrying a Kohen - speaks mi'de'Rabbanan, because mi'd'Oraysa, the Chalitzah is ineffective.

(b) Alternatively, it is Resh Lakish, who asks why, according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana says 'Paslah min ha'Kehunah' (le'Chumra, and not 'Einah Tzerichah Chalitzah min ha'Achim', le'Kula), seeing as, in his opinion, the Chalitzah is valid. Rebbi Yochanan replies - that the Tana says 'Paslah min ha'Kehunah' to counter 'Lo Paslah min ha'Kehunah' in the Reisha (where the baby lives, and where it could not have written 'u'Tz'richah Chalitzah ... ').

(c) Resh Lakish explains that the Mishnah which says that if the Yavam performed Yibum with the Yevamah and the baby turned out to be a still-born child, he may retain her - means that he retains her by means of a fresh Bi'ah (seeing as the original Bi'ah, according to him, is not valid). 'de'Lo Sagi be'La'av Hachi' means - that 'Yekayem' does not mean that he is *permitted* to retain her (as we thought till now), but that he is *obligated* to do so; otherwise, she is forbidden both to him and to the Shuk, since he can neither make Calitzah, nor give her a Get (unless he acquires her with a proper Bi'ah).

(d) Alternatively, it is Resh Lakish who asks why, according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana says 'Yekayem' and not 'Ratzah Yotzi, Ratzah Yekayeim'. Rebbi Yochanan explains here too - that the Tana says 'Yekayem', to counter the Reisha where he says 'Yotzi'.

(a) The Beraisa forbids the Tzarah of a Yevamah who performed Yibum and then discovered that she is pregnant, to marry le'Shuk, 'in case the baby turns out to be one that lives', an obvious mistake, because, if anything, the baby living is reason to *permit* her to marry (and not to forbid it). We amend the Beraisa to read 'in case the baby turns out to be one that does *not* live'.

(b) This Beraisa is now a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - because if the Yibum of a pregnant Yevamah is considered valid (retroactively), why should the Tzarah not get married?

(c) We then try to amend the wording of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - to read that, as far as Bi'ah is concerned, even Rebbi Yochanan agrees that the Bi'ah of a pregnant woman is not valid, and it is only by Chalitzah that they argue.

(d) Rav rejects this amendment however - on the grounds that, if the Bi'ah is not a Bi'ah, then the Chalitzah is not a Chalitzah either, seeing as we have learned that any Yevamah who stands to receive Yibum stands to receive Chalitzah, and one who not stand to receive Yibum, does not stand to receive Chalitzah either.

(a) Rava therefore amends the Beraisa - to read that the Tzarah of a Yevamah who performed Yibum and then discovered that she is pregnant, is forbidden to marry le'Shuk, 'in case the baby turns out to be one that lives', in which case, the Yibum is invalid (to which everyone agrees), and even the baby does not exempt from Yibum or Chalitzah retroactively, only from the time that it is born.

(b) Even Rebbi Yochanan will agree with this (even though he holds the Bi'ah of a Me'uberes is valid) - because his argument is based on the fact that, if Eliyahu were to reveal that the baby will *die*, the Yibum and the Chalitzah would be valid ... , and the reason that the Tzarah is forbidden to get married is that the baby might *live*.

(c) We know that Rava's explanation is authoritative - because he is backed by a Beraisa.

Next daf


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