(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 40



(a) When the Reisha of the Beraisa (whose Seifa we just discussed) says that the Minchah was first permitted and then became forbidden, it means - that initially, the contents of the Minchah were permitted to eat, and then became forbidden after the sanctification of the Minchah.

(b) Rava (who learned the Seifa of the Beraisa like the Rabbanan of Aba Shaul (that it is a Mitzvah to perform Yibum as opposed to Chalitzah) explains the conclusion of the Reisha ('Talmud Lomar "Matzos Tei'achel be'Makom Kadosh", Mitzvah') - to mean that, once the Kometz is burned and the Minchah becomes permitted once again, it is not like before, when anyone was permitted to eat it, because now it became a Mitzvah for *him* to eat it (see Tosfos DH 'Ratzah').

(c) We reject the suggestion of explaining the Havah Amina as 'Ratzah Ochlah, Ratzah Einah Ochlah' - on the basis of the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "ve'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem", which teaches us that it is a Mitzvah for the Kohanim to eat Kodshim, so how could the Tana say 'Ratzah Eino Ochlah'.

(d) The problem we have in explaining the Reisha according to Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi (who learns that 'Talmud Lomar, Mitzvah' in the Seifa [regarding Yibum], means 'le'Mitzvah', like Aba Shaul) - is in finding two ways of eating the Minchah (like Lishmah and she'Lo Lishmah in the Seifa), because, unlike in the Seifa, there is no sin in eating the Minchah for ulterior motives.

(a) We cannot explain the Reisha according to Aba Shaul, to mean ...
1. ... 'Ratzah le'Tei'avon Ochlah, Ratzah, Achilah Gasah, Ochlah' - because we have already learned that Achilah Gasah (eating on a full stomach) is not called Achilah, in which case, we know already that one is not Yotze from "*ve'Achlu* Aharon u'Vanav".
2. ... 'Ratzah Chametz Ochlah, Ratzah, Matzah Ochlah' - because we know already that the Minchah may not be eaten as Chametz (even the part that is eaten by the Kohanim, from the Pasuk in Tzav "Lo Sei'afeh Chametz").
(b) We know that ...
1. ... even the portion of the Minchah that is eaten by the Kohanim must be eaten as Matzah, and not as Chametz - because the Torah writes "Lo Sei'afeh Chametz, *Chelkam*".
2. ... someone who eats on a full stomach on Yom Kipur is Patur - because the Mishnah in Yoma states that someone who eats on a full stomach on Yom Kipur is Patur from "Lo Se'uneh" (seeing as eating on a full stomach is included in Inuy - because it is harmful).
(c) We initially reject the suggestion that the Tana means to say 'Ratzah Matzah Ochlah, Ratzah Chalut Ochlah' - because if Chalut (cooked in boiling water) is Matzah, then why should he not be Yotze? And if it is not Matzah, then we have just explained why one is not Yotze.
(a) We finally explain the Reisha to mean - 'Ratzah Matzah Ochlah, Ratzah Chalut Ochlah', concluding "Matzos Tei'achel ... " - meaning *proper* Matzos and not Chalut, despite the fact that Chalut is considered Matzah.

(b) Chazal said that Chalut is considered Matzah - in respect of being Yotze one's obligation of eating Matzah on Seder-night, provided one then baked it in the oven.

(a) The Mishnah teaches us that the brother who performs Chalitzah receives an equal portion to his brothers in their deceased brother's inheritance. We might otherwise have thought - that he is fined for performing Chalitzah and not Yibum.

(b) The Tana cannot be coming to preclude from the notion that the Choletz might be the sole heir, as if he had performed Yibum - because then, the Tana should have said '*Eino Ela* ke'Echad min ha'Achim' (rather than '*Harei Hu* ke'Echad ... ').

(c) The brothers will receive nothing at all - if one of them performed Chalitzah when their father was still alive.

(d) The Tana Kama maintains that the brother who performs Yibum is the sole heir even if their father is still alive. But according to Rebbi Yehudah - the father always *precedes* his offspring.

(a) The principle that governs the Din in our Mishnah that, if the father is still alive, he inherits, is - that the father precedes his offspring (except, according to the Tana Kama, when one of the brothers performed Yibum).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Yakum al-sheim Achiv" - that the brother who performs Yibum inherits the deceased brother.

(c) Many Amora'im rule like Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah (that the father even takes precedence over the brother who performed Yibum). He Darshens this from "ve'Hayah ha'B'chor Asher Teiled" - a B'chor does not receive any inheritance during his father's life-time, so neither does he.

(d) The Pasuk cannot also be telling us that, like a Bechor, the brother who performed Yibum takes a double portion after his father's death - because it says "Yakum al-sheim *Achiv*" and not "*Aviv*", and whatever he would receive only after his father's death, would be his *father's* inheritance, and not his *brother's*.

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, we cannot then learn from the Pasuk "(ve'Hayah ha'Bechor") that, where there is a father, and the Yavam does not inherit his brother, he does not perform Yibum either - because the Torah did not connect Yibum with inheritance (to such an extent - see Tosfos Yeshanim).

(b) When Rebbi Chanina Kara quoted to Rebbi Yanai that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yehudah - he told him to take his quotations outside, because the Halachah is not like him.

(c) And when the Beraisa expert quoted a Beraisa to Rav Nachman 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehudah' - he commented that surely, it is obvious that the Halachah is like the majority?

(d) When he offered to remove it from his Beraisos however - Rav Nachman told him that this was not necessary, because in fact, he had initially cited the Beraisa as saying 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehudah' (a ruling which certainly needed to be stated - justifying the Beraisa). However, not liking the fact that the Beraisa ruled like a minority, he changed the text to 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehudah' (and rightly so).




(a) Any relation of one's *wife* who is forbidden to him, is forbidden if she is the relation of the *Chalutzah* as well - mi'de'Rabbanan (and the same applies to the Chalutzah vis-a-vis the relatives of the Chalutz).

(b) Besides his wife's sister, our Mishnah also lists his mother, mother's mother and father's mother, his daughter, daughter's daughter and son's daughter.

(c) The brothers of the Chalutz are not included in the prohibition.

(d) The Tana lists Aviv and Avi Aviv, B'no and Ben B'no, Achiv and ben Achiv who are forbidden to the Chalutzah. Aviv is forbidden on account of Kalaso, and B'no on account of Eishes Av. They decreed on ...

  1. ... Avi Aviv - on account of Kalas B'no.
  2. ... Ben Achiv - on account of Eishes Achi Aviv.
(a) A man is permitted to marry 'K'rovas Tzaras Chalutzaso - but not 'Tzaras K'rovas Chalutzaso.

(b) We ask whether Chazal decreed the Sh'niyos by Chalutzah or not. They might not have done so - seeing as Chalutzah herself is only mi'de'Rabbanan (making it something like a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah).

(c) We cannot resolve, from the fact that the Tana included Imah and Eim Imah, but not Eim Eim Imah, that they did not decree the Sh'niyos - because it may be that he deliberately omitted Eim Eim Imah, so that when he would later conclude 've'ha'Achin Mutarin', nobody will think that he is referring exclusively, to Eim Eim Imah.

(d) It would have been possible, we conclude, both to mention Eim Eim Imah and to state that the brothers are permitted, and still to avoid the problem - by simply adding 'ha'Achin Mutarin *be'Chulan'*.

(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the fact that the Tana mentions ...
1. ... Avi Aviv, (Kalas B'no) which is a Sh'niyah. We refute this proof however - because he could just as well be forbidden because she is the Kalas B'no of her first husband.
2. ... Ben B'no, to whom she is Eishes Avi Aviv. We reject the suggestion that she is Asur because she is a Sh'niyah of her deceased husband - because that would make her Eishes Achi Avi Aviv, and Ameimar holds that Eishes Achi Avi Aviv is not a Sh'niyah at all.
(b) To avoid proving that they did decree Sh'ni'yos by Chalutzah, Ameimar will then have to explain 'Ben B'no' - to mean Ben B'no of the father of the deceased (in other words, B'no and ben B'no refer to Aviv that preceded them).

(c) This is not the same as 'Achiv u'Ben Achiv' which is already mentioned in the Mishnah - because, whereas 'B'no u'Ben B'no refer to his paternal brother and nephew, 'Achiv u'Ben Achiv' refers to maternal ones.

(a) Rebbi Chiya quotes a Beraisa which lists four relations d'Oraysa by Chalutzah, and four de'Rabbanan. The four d'Oraysa are Aviv, u'B'no, Achiv u'Ben Achiv. The four relations de'Rabbanan are - Avi Aviv, Avi Imo, Ben B'no u'Ben Bito.

(b) The Isur of 'Achiv' is - "Lo Yivneh" ('Keivan she'Lo Banah, Shuv Lo Yivneh').

(c) We have already explained above that Avi Aviv could refer, not to the Chalutz, but to the first husband (because of Eishes Achi Aviv). In similar fashion, to avoid proving that they decreed Sh'niyos by Chalutzah, we will explain 'Avi Imo' to mean 'Kalas Bito' (assuming that her deceased husband and the Yavam had the same mother).

(d) Ameimar cannot establish Ben B'no in Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa by the son's son of the Chalutzah's husband (because of Eishes Achi Avi Aviv) - because in his opinion, Eishes Achi Avi Aviv is not a Sh'niyah. He must therefore establish it by the Yevamah's son's son (who is forbidden because of Eishes Avi Aviv - who is a Sh'niyah), providing us with conclusive proof that, according to Ameimar at least, Chazal *did* decree Sh'niyos by Chalutzah.

(a) The relationship between the Chalutzah and Ben Bito of ...
1. ... the Choletz - is that of Eishes Avi Imo.
2. ... her first husband - Eishes Achi Avi Imo.
(b) We cannot explain that 'Ben Bito' is forbidden because she is Eishes Achi Avi Imo of her first husband - because Eishes Achi Avi Imo is not a Sh'niyah (so it must be because she is Eishes Avi Imo of the Chalutz).

(c) Clearly then - Chazal did decree Sh'niyos by Chalutzah!

(a) Rav Tuvi bar Kisna Amar Shmuel says that the baby from Tzaras Chalutzaso is a Mamzer - because, in his opinion, the La'av of 'Lo Yivneh' only covers the Chalutzah, but the Tzarah remains with the Isur Kareis of Eishes Ach (and the child born from an Isur Kareis is a Mamzer.

(b) Rav Yosef tries to prove Shmuel's Din from our Mishnah, which permits K'rovas Tzaras Chalutzaso - because if not for the fact that the Tzarah remains an Ervah, why should her relation be permitted to the Chalutz?

(c) This proof however, leaves us with a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - who says that neither the Chalutz nor his brothers are Chayav Kareis on either the Chalutzah or her Tzarah.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan counters this by pointing out that we are dealing with Tzaras *Chalutzaso* - and Chalutzaso is only an Isur de'Rabbanan in the first place, in which case, the reason that K'rovas Tzaras Chalutzaso is permitted cannot possibly be because Tzaras Chalutzaso is Chayav Kareis (but because of a decree).

13) The reason that Chazal decreed on Tzaras Achos Chalutzaso, and not on Achos Tzaras Chalutzaso - is because whereas, in the former case, Achos Chalutzaso would normally have accompanied her sister to Beis-Din for the Chalitzah ceremony, causing people to become confused, to think that *she* is the Chalutzah (and consider her Tzarah to be a Tzaras Ervah); by Achos Tzaras Chalutzaso, where the Tzarah does not accompany the Yevamah to the Beis-Din, there is nothing to worry about, because, even if the Chalutz marries the Tzarah's sister, nobody will suspect them of sinning.

Next daf


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