(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 53

YEVAMOS 46-55 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) According to Rav Sh'ravyah, in the case of a Chalitzah Kesheirah, even the Rabbanan will agree that, if the Yavam made Ma'amar with his Chalutzah using the words 'Hiskadshi Li be'Zikas Yabmin', his Kidushin would not be effective - because he holds 'Yesh Zikah', and the Chalitzah has already removed the Zikah (as we explained earlier according to Rebbi).

(b) According to him, Rebbi and the Rabbanan argue about whether Chalitzah Pesulah (following a Get) removes the Zikah or not - Rebbi holds that it *does*, in which case the Ma'amar that came after it is not valid and does not require a Get; whereas the Rabbanan hold that it *does*, in which case, the Ma'amar that follows requires a Get.

(c) According to Rav Ashi, even Rebbi will agree that Chalitzah Pesulah does not remove the Zikah, and they argue over whether a Chalitzah Kesheirah with a stipulation is effective or not. The opinion of ...

1. ... Rebbi is - that a stipulation does not render the Chalitzah invalid, in which case, the Chalitzah is effective, even if the condition was not met.
2. ... the Rabbanan is - that a stipulation renders the Chalitzah invalid, as long as it has not been met.
(a) Ravina holds that both Tana'im agree that 'Yesh T'nai ba'Chalitzah'. In fact - we rule later (in Perek Mitzvas Chalitzah) that even a Chalitzah into which the Yavam was tricked to perform, is valid. According to Ravina, however, Rebbi and the Rabbanan do not concur with that ruling.

(b) In his opinion, they argue about T'nai Kaful - meaning that the Yavam made a stipulation (which was subsequently not met), but without doubling it (as we find by the B'nei Gad and the B'nei Reuven).

(c) The opinion of ...

1. ... Rebbi - is that such a condition *is not valid*, in which case, the Chalitzah is effective, and the Ma'amar that follows it does not require a Get.
2. ... the Rabbanan is - that it *is*, and the Chalitzah is not effective, and the Ma'amar that follows it does require a Get.
(a) After listing all the possible cases that follow Chalitzah and those that follow Yibum, our Tana concludes 'Ein Achar Chalitzah K'lum'. Abaye and Rava amend this to read - 'Ein Achar Bi'ah K'lum', because, on their opinion, it is the more likely version, seeing as the Tana just dealt with Bi'ah.

(b) Our Tana however, prefers the current text - because he prefers to stress the Heter Yevamah le'Shuk. Either way, having told us one of them, it was not necessary to tell us the other.

(c) The Tana of our Mishnah, who says that, according to the Chachamim of Raban Gamliel, Ma'amar after Ma'amar requires two Gitin, both by one two Yevamin and one Yevamah and by two Yevamos and one Yavam, does not hold like ben Azai - in whose opinion there is Ma'amar after Ma'amar in the former case, but not in the latter.

(d) The proof from here that negates the other Lashon in ben Azai (reversing his opinion, so that he holds that there is Ma'amar after Ma'amar by two Yevamos and one Yavam but not by two Yevamin and one Yevamah) is - because then, this Gemara should have been learned later, when it discusses the Seifa, where the Tana comes to teach us the Chidush by two Yevamin and one Yevamah.

(a) We try to bring support from our Mishnah 'Get la'Zu ve'Chalatz la'Zu ... ' for Shmuel, who says 'Chalatz le'Ba'alas Ma'amar, Lo Nifterah Tzarasah' - since the Tana did not speak when he performed Chalitzah with the Ba'alas ha'Get, it appears that this is not permitted.

(b) Rav Yosef says that, where a man has two Yevamos, one of whom is a Ba'alas Get - he should rather perform Chalitzah with the Ba'alas ha'Get, in order not to render the second Yevamah forbidden, too (and the proof for Shmuel is at one and the same time, a Kashya on Rav Yosef).

(c) We both refute the proof for Shmuel and resolve the Kashya on Rav Yosef - by pointing out that the Tana does not say that he is obligated to perform Chalitzah with the second Yevamah, but simply what the Din would be if he did.

(d) 'Get la'Zu, ve'Get la'Zu, *Tz'richos* Heimenu Chalitzah', is not a proof for Rabah bar Rav Huna, who says that when a Yevamah is confronted with a Chalitzah Pesulah, she requires Chalitzah from *all* the brothers - because who says that 'Tz'richos' refers to all the Yevamos from that particular house? Perhaps it means 'Tz'richos de'Alma' (all Yevamos in this position require Chalitzah).

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, after one brother has performed Chalitzah, there is only a La'av on other brothers vis-a-vis the Chalutzah and the other Tzaros (as we learned above on Daf 10b.).

(b) The Mishnah, which says 'Bein Yavam Echad li'Sh'tei Yevamos, Bein Sh'nei Yevamin li'Sh'tei Yevamos ... ' poses a Kashya on Resh Lakish, who disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan (and holds that there is a Chiyuv Kareis) - because why should the Tana find it necessary to tell us that Kidushin is not effective on Chayvei K'risus? Whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana needs to tell us that Kidushin is not effective on Chayvei La'avin (presenting us with a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva).

(c) Resh Lakish counters with the Seifa 'Ba'al ve'Asah Ma'amar ... ' - Why would it be necessary, he asks, to inform us that Kidushin is not effective on a married woman (who also carries a Chiyuv Kareis)?

(d) So he resolves the fact that the Tana needs to insert the Din by ...

1. ... two Yevamos and one Yavam - on account of one Yavam and one Yevamah (where the Tana needs to teach us 'Ein Ma'amar Achar Chalitzah', because 'Ma'amar Achar Chalitzah' by one Yavam and one Yevamah is certainly only a La'av ["Lo Yivneh"], even according to Resh Lakish).
2. ... two Yevamin and one Yevamah - on account of two Yevamos and one Yevamah.



(a) The Tana of our Mishnah needs to insert the case of 'Chalatz ve'Asah Ma'amar ... Ein Achar Chalitzah K'lum' - because we would otherwise have thought that we decree Ma'amar after Chalitzah on account of Ma'amar before Chalitzah (which certainly requires a Get).

(b) And he needs to insert ...

1. ... 'Chalatz ve'Nasan Get' - because it is the parallel case of Ba'al ve'Nasan Get' (which the Tana certainly needs to mention).
2. ... 'Ba'al ve'Asah Ma'amar - because it is the parallel case of Chalatz ve'Asah Ma'amar (which the Tana also needs to mention).
(c) 'Ba'al ve'Nasan Get' is more obviously necessary - because we would otherwise have thought that we decree Get after Be'ilah because of Be'ilah after Get.
(a) Our Mishnah cited the Machlokes between the Tana Kama, who holds 'Ein Achar Chalitzah K'lum' even if it is in the middle or at the end, but 'Ein Achar Bi'ah K'lum', only if it is at the beginning, and Rebbi Nechemyah, who does not differentiate by Bi'ah either. Aba Yossi ben Yochanan Ish Yerushalayim Amar Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa - that even 'Ein Achar Chalitzah K'lum' only applies if Chalitzah was performed at the beginning, but not in the middle or at the end (like Bi'ah).

(b) The Tana Kama decrees Bi'ah after Get because of Bi'ah after Chalitzah, as we explained at the beginning of the Perek. Rebbi Nechemyah maintains that - since Chalitzah is d'Oraysa, everyone knows that Bi'ah after it is ineffective, and no decree is necessary.

(c) Aba Yossi holds like the Tana Kama with regard to Bi'ah after Get. He also forbids Chalitzah after Get or Ma'amar however, even though there is no intrinsic reason to forbid it - because he decrees Chalitzah on account of Bi'ah.

***** Hadran Alach Raban Gamliel *****

***** Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto *****


(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'ha'Ba al Yevimto Shogeg' - he refers to a Yavam who thought that he was being Bo'el his wife (or any other woman for that matter), and then discovered that it was in fact, his Yevamah.

(b) A Yavam acquires his Yevamah, even if ...

1. ... both of them were Shogegim or Anusim ...
2. ... or if either he or she was Shogeg or O'nes, whilst the other one performed Yibum for the sake of the Mitzvah.
(c) The ramifications of 'Koneh' are - that he acquires his brother's property and that his wife will now require a Get (rather than Chalitzah) before she is permitted to marry anybody else.
(a) There is no difference whether the Yavam made Bi'ah or Ha'ara'ah, or whether he performed a natural Bi'ah or an unnatural one.

(b) The other areas of Halachah that are affected by this ruling - are those of Arayos, Chayvei La'avin and Pesulei Kehunah, as will be explained.

(c) If a Kohen Gadol performs any of the above with an Almanah, or a Kohen Hedyot with a Gerushah or Chalutzah, if she is ...

1. ... a bas Yisrael - she becomes a Zonah (The Rashash points out that in fact, a Bi'ah with Chayvei La'avin of Kehunah makes her a Chalalah, and not a Zonah).
2. ... a bas Kohen - then in addition, she is prohibited from eating Terumah (and presumably, the same will apply to a bas Yisrael, from whom he had children), because he makes her a Chalalah.
(d) Bi'as Z'nus with a Penuyah who is not an Ervah does not render the woman a Zonah or a Chalalah - and she remains permitted to marry a Kohen and (if she is a Bas Kohen) to eat Terumah.
10) The Tana inserts ...
1. ... 'Mamzeres u'Nesinah le'Yisrael' - to inform us that she receives Malkos for transgressing a La'av (seeing as she is anyway forbidden to marry a Kohen and to eat Terumah).
2. ... 'bas Yisrael le'Mamzer u'le'Nasin' - for the same reason as above, to forbid her to marry a Kohen (because, even though she has only transgressed a plain La'av, she becomes a Zonah).
(a) When the Tana says 'Afilu Hu Shogeg ve'Hi Mezidah ... ' (the word 'Afilu' having no meaning as it stands), what he really means is that we can take for granted that, when one of them has the intention of performing a Mitzvah, he acquires her, but even if neither of them intends to do so, he acquires her.

(b) We cannot explain 'O'nes' to mean that he ...

1. ... was physically forced to perform Bi'ah with the Yevamah - because that would not constitute O'nes, seeing as Kishuy cannot be brought on be'O'nes.
2. ... performed Yibum in his sleep - because Rav Yehudah has already taught us that a Yavam who performs Yibum in his sleep does not acquire his Yevamah.
3. ... fell from the roof and, quite by chance, he landed on top of his Yevamah and performed Yibum (unintentionally) - because there too, Rabah has taught us that he does acquire his Yevamah in that way (seeing as he did not even intend to perform Bi'ah).
(c) He would however, be Chayav in this case, to pay for four out of the five types of damage that one is obligated to pay for personal damage - damage (devaluation), pain, healing and work loss.
(a) The case of O'nes in our Mishnah by which a Yavam acquires his Yevamah is - when the Yavam was Niskasheh (prepared to be Bo'el for) his wife, and then performed Bi'ah with his Yevamah thinking it was his wife.

(b) And the case of 'Sh'neihem Anusin' of the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya, where he also acquires her is - when he was Niskasheh for his wife and Nochrim forced him to make Bi'ah with his Yevamah.

Next daf


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