(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 43

YEVAMOS 42 & 43 - sponsored by Hagaon Rav Yosef Pearlman of London, a living demonstration of love for and adoration of the Torah.



(a) The Mishnah in Keilim writes that a Tamei flax-comb whose teeth are missing, retains its Tum'ah if *two* teeth remain, but is Tahor, if there is only *one* left - because, whereas the former can still be used for its original function, the latter cannot.

(b) Each tooth that is pulled out, retains its Tum'ah - because it is fit for various purposes (to clean out a lamp or to stretch clothes or threads to separate them).

(a) If the middle tooth of each group of three teeth of a Tamei wool-comb, is missing - it is Tahor.

(b) If one group of three teeth remains intact, the comb remains Tamei - unless one of the teeth is the outer one, which is thicker than the others, in which case that group of three does not serve its former function.

(c) The broken teeth remain Tamei if ...

1. ... two teeth broke off together - provided he then designated them for use as a pair of tweezers.
2. ... even one single tooth broke off - should he then prepare it for use to clean out a lamp or to stretch clothes or threads.
(d) We reconcile Rebbi Yochanan, who always rules like a S'tam Mishnah, with the tradition that this Mishnah is not Halachah, despite the fact that it is a S'tam Mishnah - by quoting Rebbi Yochanan himself, who said together with Resh Lakish that this Mishnah is not authentic.
(a) The reason that Rebbi Yochanan rejected this Mishnah cannot be because the Reisha says that a Tamei wool-comb with the middle tooth missing from each group of three is Tahor (implying that if *two* adjoining teeth remain intact, it is Tamei), whereas the Seifa says that only if a set of *three* teeth remain intact is it Tamei (according to Rashi's second explanation) - because in fact, a wool-comb has two parallel rows of teeth. Consequently, the Seifa is referring to the outer row (which serves the main function of the comb), which is Tahor because, unless *three* teeth are intact, it will not serve its function; whereas the inner row, which is only to catch the wool, to prevent the wool from falling, serves its purpose even with *two*, and is therefore Tamei.

(b) Nor did he reject it because, whereas in the Reisha, the Tana considers each tooth that breaks off a K'li even without fashioning it, in the Seifa, he requires fashioning, because, as Abaye explains, maybe the Reisha speaks when a bit of the handle broke off with it, and the Seifa speaks when it did not. Rav Papa explains - that the Reisha speaks about a thick tooth, which does *not* need a handle, whereas the Seifa speaks about a thin tooth, which *does*.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish rejected the authenticity of this S'tam Mishnah - because the experts concluded with the words 'These are the words of Rebbi Shimon' (in which case, it is not a S'tam Mishnah).

(a) When Rebbi Chiya bar Avin sent (a message) that a woman is permitted within three months - he meant that one does not require three full months, but the majority of the first and of the third months, and the entire third month will suffice.

(b) Ameimar too, permitted her to become betrothed on the ninetieth day (before three full months had expired). According to him, to say that Rav and Shmuel both ruled that one needs to wait three months, besides the day on which her husband died and the day of the betrothal, is a misquotation - because they were referring to the twenty-four months of a feeding mother.

(c) Rava confiscated the Se'udah that someone arranged when he 'betrothed' a woman on the ninetieth day after her husband's death is also a misquotation - because that was not a Se'udas *Eirusin*, but a Se'udas *Nisu'in*.

(d) The Halachah however, is not like Ameimar - but a feeding mother has to wait twenty-four months besides the day that the baby was born and the day of her betrothal; and a woman who is not feeding must wait three months, besides the day when her husband died and the day of the betrothal.

(a) The Mishnah in Ta'anis forbids a haircut and washing clothes during the week in which Tish'ah be'Av falls - though both are permitted on Thursday in honor of Shabbos.

(b) 'Before this time', says the Beraisa, 'one diminishes one's business deals, building and planting' - and betrothal is permitted then, though marriage is forbidden.

(c) Assuming that 'before this time' refers to before Tish'ah be'Av, Rav Chisda asks from here on Rebbi Yossi, who forbids the betrothal of a widow during the Sh'loshim - because if, where washing clothes is forbidden, betrothal is permitted, where washing clothes is permitted (a mourner after the Shiv'ah), betrothal should certainly be permitted?

(d) We answer that, as far as betrothal is concerned, when the Tana permits betrothal 'before this time' ('Kodem ... '), he means 'Kodem de'Kodem' - before the week of Tish'ah be-Av, when washing clothes is also permitted (depriving us of the 'Kal va'Chomer').

(a) Rava nevertheless reiterates Rav Chisda's Kashya (even on Kodem de'Kodem) using the same 'Kal va'Chomer' (substituting business, which is forbidden even before the week of Tish'ah be'Av, for washing clothes).

(b) So we amend 'Kol ha'Nashim *Yis'arsu* ... ' of Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah - to 'Kol ha'Nashim *Yinas'u* Chutz min ha'Almanah'.

(c) We now contend that the Tana Kama forbids even an Arusah to become betrothed whereas Rebbi Yehudah permits the betrothal of a woman who was married and the marriage of one who was betrothed.
Rebbi ...

  1. ... Yossi does not in fact, hold of Havchanah at all.
  2. ... Yehudah holds that a widow is not permitted to become betrothed during the Sheloshim.



(a) According to the second Lashon, we amend Rebbi Yossi's statement to 'Kol ha'Arusos Gerushos Yinas'u', and he *does* hold of Havchanah. Bearing in mind that in this Lashon, Rebbi Yossi is more strict than Rebbi Yehudah - he argues with him regarding ha'Nesu'os Yis'arsu, which he forbids.

(b) Rebbi Yossi permits an Arusah to marry - because she is definitely not pregnant, but forbids a married woman to become betrothed - because she might be pregnant, and he decrees betrothal on account of marriage.

(c) We reconcile Rebbi Yossi here with a Beraisa where he says 'Kol ha'Nashim Yis'arsu ... ' - by amending it like we amended our Mishnah: 'Kol ha'Arusos Gerushos, Yinas'u Chutz min ha'Almanah'.

(d) And we amend 've'Chulan Lo *Yinas'u* ad she'Yihyu Lahen Sheloshah Chodashim' in the Beraisa (implying that betrothal is permitted) - to read 'u'Nesu'os Lo Yis'arsu ad she'Yihyu Lahen Sheloshah Chodashim'.

(a) A man does not inherit his betrothed should she die. But *she* may claim her Kesubah, should *he* die (provided that he wrote her a Kesubah in the first place).

(b) The Dinim of Aninus and Aveilus, and the obligation of burial do not apply to an Arus and an Arusah, should one of them die.

(c) We see from here that a widow from the Eirusin is not obligated to mourn - so how can we amend Rebbi Yossi to read 'Kol Arusos *Gerushos* Yinas'u' (but not Almanos - because of mourning)?

(d) As a result of this Kashya, we reinstate the original text as it stands in our Mishnah ('Kol ha'Nashim Yis'arsu Chutz min ha'Almanah'). We answer our original Kashya on Rebbi Yossi (who forbids a woman who is mourning to become betrothed) from the Beraisa (which says 'Kodem ha'Z'man ha'Zeh ... *u'Me'arsin*') - by turning it into a Machlokes Tana'im; Rebbi Yossi concurs with the Tana of the Beraisa which forbids both marriage and betrothal during the week of Tish'ah be'Av.

(a) The Tana Kama in the Beraisa forbids betrothal during the week of Tish'ah be'Av. 'Yesh Omrim' (Rebbi Nasan) is even more strict - forbidding it during the entire month of Av.

(b) Rav Ashi disagrees with those who just portrayed the Heter of betrothal during the week of Tish'ah be'Av, as a Machlokes Tana'im. He explains that, when the Beraisa forbids betrothal during the week of Tish'ah be'Av - it is forbidding betrothal with a *Se'udah*, but not the betrothal itself.

(c) This does not mean that when the Tana forbids marriage, he also means specifically marriage with a Se'udah (but permits marriage without one) - because marriage is a happy event even without a Se'udah, whereas by betrothal the main Simchah lies in the Se'udah.

(d) Rav Ashi explains that Rebbi Yossi forbids a widow to become betrothed on the one hand, whilst conceding that betrothal during the week of Tish'ah be'Av is permitted on the other - because the former is a fresh, private mourning, whereas the latter is an ancient, public one (making it less intense, and therefore less stringent).

(a) If four brothers die - the oldest remaining brother has the right to insist on performing Yibum with all of the Yevamos.

(b) If a man dies, leaving two Yevamos, the Yibum or the Chalitzah of one of them exempts the other. If one of them is Pesulah li'Kehunah (for example, a divorcee), if the Yavam wants to perform Chalitzah, he must perform Chalitzah with the one who is Pasul - to avoid invalidating the Kasher Yevamah unnecessarily.

(c) He may perform Yibum - with whichever one he wishes.

Next daf


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