ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 37
YEVAMOS 36 & 37 - sponsored by Hagaon Rav Yosef Pearlman of London, a living
demonstration of love for and adoration of the Torah.
(a) We just learned that, according to Ravina, even Raban Shimon ben Gamliel
will agree that, if a Kohen married a Yevamah whose baby died within thirty
days, she does not require Chalitzah. Rav Ashi asked Rav Oshaya Brei de'Rav
Idi whether, if a Kohen married a woman who was pregnant or feeding within
twenty-four months, we will make the same concession for a Kohen and permit
him to remain with her without a Get. Rav Oshaya Brei de'Rav Idi replied in
the negative - because, whereas in the case of a Safek Nefel, for the sake
of the Kohen, we rely on the opinion of the Chachamim, who consider the baby
to be a proper person, in our Mishnah, according to Rebbi Meir, the woman
requires a permanent Get, and according to the Chachamim, at least a
temporary one. So on what grounds can we justify allowing her to remain with
the man who transgressed because he is a Kohen?
(b) If someone betroths a woman within three months of her widowhood or
divorce, and runs away, Rav Acha and Rafram argue over whether he needs to
write her a Get or not. Writing a Get might *not* be necessary - because the
very fact that he ran away indicates that he does not wish to remain with
her for the full forbidden period, so a Get is not necessary.
(c) In fact, it is Rafram who takes the lenient view - because when an
incident occurred, that was how he ruled.
(a) Rava asked Rav Nachman why a woman needs to wait three months, because,
in case she is pregnant, we will not know whether the baby is a ninth-month
baby from her first husband or a seventh-month baby from the second. Why
should we not follow the majority of women, who give birth after nine
months, he asked him? To which he replied - that, in his town, the women
give birth at seven months, and not at nine.
(b) Rava did not like Rav Nachman's reply - because his town is not the
majority of the world?
(c) Rav Nachman then explained that, seeing as the pregnancy of all women
who give birth at nine months is discernible, we automatically rule that,
this woman, whose pregnancy was not discernible, had lost her 'Rov'. We
reject this explanation however - because if the pregnancy of *all* women
who give birth at nine months *is discernible*, then, seeing as this woman's
pregnancy was *not*, then how can we even consider the possibility that
maybe the baby is a ninth-month baby from the first husband?
(d) So we amend Rav Nachman's words to read - seeing as the pregnancy of
(not *all* women, but) of *most* women who give birth at nine months is
discernible, we automatically rule that, this woman, whose pregnancy was not
discernible, has lost her 'Rov'.
(a) If a man married a woman immediately after her husband died, and she
gave birth at nine months, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa says that ...
1. ... that baby - is fit to marry a Kohen Gadol.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says 'Ein Mamzer mi'Safek'. Abaye explains
that, according to the Tana Kama, the second baby is a Safek Mamzer and
forbidden to marry a Vaday Mamzer; Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov holds - that
the second baby is not a Safek Mamzer but a Vaday Mamzer, and permitted to
marry a Vaday Mamzer.
2. ... the next baby that is born to him - is a Mamzer mi'Safek.
(c) Rava inverts the Machlokes - according to the Tana Kama, the second baby
is a Vaday Mamzer and is permitted to marry a Mamzer, whereas, according to
Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, the second baby is a Safek Mamzer, and forbidden
to marry a Vaday Mamzer.
(d) Abaye and Rava, explains the Gemara, argue about Rebbi Elazar - meaning
that they are trying at all costs, to establish Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov
(whose Mishnah is 'Kav ve'Naki' - not frequently mentioned, but when he is,
it is Halachah). Consequently, those who consider Rebbi Elazar's Beraisa
Halachah, establish Rebbi Elazar ben Ya'akov like him; whereas those who
consider Hillel's Beraisa Halachah, establish Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov like
(a) Rebbi Elazar says 'Vada'an be'Vada'an Mutar ... S'feikan bi'S'feikan
Asur' - because perhaps the one Safek is Kasher, and the other, Pasul, in
which case one is bringing a Pasul into the Kehal Hashem.
(b) The three cases of S'feikan - are a Sh'tuki (whose mother shuts him up
when he refers to her husband 'his father'); an Asufi (a waif whom they
picked up in the street) and a Kuti.
(c) A Kuti is a Safek - because they are not particular about some of the
major Halachos of Kidushin.
(d) When Rav Yehudah told Shmuel that Rav ruled like Rebbi Elazar - he
retorted that, seeing as Hillel taught that all the Yuchsin are permitted to
each other (as will be explained shortly), how can we rule like Rebbi
(a) We just quoted Hillel, who says that all the ten Yuchsin are permitted
to each other. From the following group, we must preclude ...
1. ... Kohani, Levi'i, Yisre'eili, *Chalali*?
(b) In the above Machlokes between Abaye and Rava, it is Rava who follows
the opinion of Rav (Rebbi Elazar), and Abaye, the opinion of Shmuel
2. ... *Kohani*, Levi'i, Yisre'eili, Chalali, Geiri, Charuri and Avadim
3. ... *Levi'i, Yisre'eili*, Geiri, Charuri, Mamzeiri, Nesini, Shesuki and
(a) Abaye proves from another statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, where
he says that, if a man has relations with many women or vice-versa, it will
result in a man marrying his daughter, a brother, his sister, and a world
full of Mamzeirim, because the Torah writes "u'Mal'ah ha'Aretz Zimah" - that
he considers a Safek Mamzer like a Vadai Mamzer.
(b) According to Rava - "Zimah" is the acronym of 'Zu Mah Hi' (denoting a
(c) Over and above this - Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov forbids a man to marry
two wives in two countries, in case the son of one meets the daughter of the
other and (without knowing that they share a common father, they) get
(d) This does not create a problem with Rav and Rav Nachman, who would marry
a woman for a short time when they traveled overseas (despite the fact that
they had a wife where they lived) - because, seeing as they were renowned
sages, the mothers would publicise their names when their daughters were
born, and there was no fear of their half-brothers not knowing who they
(a) Nor is there a problem with Rav and Rav Nachman from Rava's statement
(that if a woman accepts a man's proposal for marriage, she needs to keep
seven clean days) - because they used to arrange the short-term marriage
through a Sh'li'ach well in advance of their arrival.
(b) Alternatively, the Rabbanan did not actually marry the women in
question, but - based on the principle 'Eino Domeh Mi she'Yesh Lo Pas
be'Salo le'Mi she'Ein Lo Pas be'Salo', they only designated them, in case
they wanted to live with them later.
(c) The assumption that if they intended to live with them, they would not
be able to, because of Rava's principle (that they will see blood), is
incorrect - because, seeing as no definite marriage took place, Rava's
principle did not apply (i.e. she would not develop a strong desire for him
and would not therefore see blood).
(a) When the Safek (son of the first man or of the second one) and the Yavam
both claim the inheritance of the dead man - the former argues that he is
the son of the dead man, and therefore, the sole heir (since, if he is the
dead man's son, there is no Din Yibum); whereas the Yavam claims that the
Safek is *his* son, and that therefore, *he* is the Yavam, and the sole
(b) Seeing as both of them have an equal claim (both are Safek heirs) - they
divide the inheritance between them.
(a) In a case where the Safek and the sons of the Yavam both claim the
inheritance of the dead man - the Safek claims to be his son (in which case,
the Yavam was not really a Yavam at all), and is the sole heir; whereas the
sons of the Yavam claim that the Safek is their brother, and that he
therefore receives an equal portion to them in their uncle's inheritance.
(b) The Rabbanan suggested to Rav Mesharshaya that this was similar to the
Mishnah in Nos'in al ha'Anusah, which talks about the Safek (seventh-month
first husband, ninth-month second one) against the sons of the two
husbands - where between them, they inherit him, but he does not inherit
them (because each one can say to him 'Prove that you are our brother,
before you take with us'!).
(c) The equivalent Din here would be - that the Safek (who receives a
portion whosoever son he is) could say to them 'Prove that you are my
brothers before you take with me'!).
(d) Rav Mesharshaya told them that the cases were not even similar - because
whereas there (in Nos'in al ha'Anusah), each set of brothers *knows* exactly
whose heir he is, here, the Safek does *not*, making him no less a Safek
(Halachically) than they. Consequently, the amount that the sons of the
Yavam agree is his due (as a brother of theirs) he takes at the outset; and
as for the rest (the section over which they are arguing), they take half
and he takes half.
(a) Rav Mesharshaya therefore compares the Mishnah in Nos'in al ha'Anusah to
the Safek and the sons of the Yavam who both claim the inheritance of the
*Yavam*. After the Safek has taken half the property of the dead man (see
Tosfos DH 'Amar'), he claims that the sons of the Yavam must give him,
either an equal share in their father's property (in which case, he will
return his half of the first brothers property), or they the other half of
their share in their uncle's property.
(b) He is interested in doing this - because the Yavam was far more wealthy
than his brother.
(c) Rebbi Aba says 'Kam Dina' - which means that, having issued their
initial ruling (placing half the property of the first brother in his
possession), Beis-Din will not now retract from this ruling (see next
(d) Rav Yirmiyah says - 'Hadar Dina', meaning that, having received half the
inheritance of the first brother, he is now entitled to claim that he is an
heir of the second brother, and Beis-Din will even reverse their initial
ruling in support of his claim.
(a) If someone who owned a field that was surrounded by four other fields,
goes overseas, and when he returns nobody remembers through whose field his
path led, according to Admon, he may take the shortest route (which will be
explained shortly). According to the Rabbanan - he will have to either pay
whatever price he is asked for a route to his field, or to fly there through
(b) We initially think that Admon is right - because we established the
Mishnah in a case where the four fields that surround the field in the
middle are all owned by one man.
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes our Mishnah when the four fields are
owned by four owners (making us wonder how Admon could ever have said such a
(d) When Rava says that if *four* came on the strength of *four* or on the
strength of *one*, even Admon will agree - he means that if the man in the
middle has to contend with four owners, even Admon will agree that each
owner can push him on to the other three (in effect, meaning that he has no
claim against them).
(a) The Machlokes is in a case when *one* man comes on the strength of
*four*. Admon maintains that the man can claim a path 'mi'Mah Nafshach'
(seeing as he is the sole owner of the four fields, and he cannot deny that,
originally, he [the owner of the middle field] had a path leading to his
field). According to the Rabbanan - the man who owns the *four* fields can
counter by saying that if the claimant is silent, he will sell him a path
for the going price (see Tosfos DH 'da'Amar'), but if not, he will return
the four Sh'taros to their original owners, and then what will he do?
(b) We try to establish Rebbi Aba (in 10b.) like the Rabbanan - because they
too, maintain 'Kam Dina', in spite of the claimant's argument of 'mi'Mah
Nafshach'; and Rav Yirmiyah like Admon - because he holds 'Hadar Dina',
because of it.
(c) However, we conclude ...
1. ... Rebbi Aba will say that even Admon agrees with him - because Admon
only said his Din in the case of the fields, where the claimant had a
definite claim (of a path to his field), whereas in our case, the Safek does
not know for sure whether he is the heir of the first brother or of the
2. ... Rav Yirmiyah will say that, even the Rabbanan agree with him -
because the owner of the four fields has the leverage of being able to
return them to their original owner, which the sons of the Yavam in our case
do not have.