ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 55
YEVAMOS 46-55 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) We have just seen in the Beraisa, that Achos Ishto me'Imah is forbidden,
no less than me'Avihah. We cannot learn ...
1. ... this from Achoso (rather than to learn from Dodaso that she is
permitted) - because Dodaso, like Achos Ishto, becomes forbidden through
Kidushin, as opposed to Achoso, who comes naturally.
(b) We actually learn Achos Ishto me'Imah - from Eishes Ach, which is both
his relative and becomes forbidden through Kidushin.
2. ... Dodaso that she is permitted (rather than from Achoso that she is
forbidden) - because Achoso, like Achos Ishto, is *his* relative, as opposed
to Dodaso, who is a relative of *his father*.
(c) We cannot learn Eishes Ach itself from ...
1. ... Dodaso (rather than from Achoso) - because it is better to learn a
relationship that is the result of Kidushin from such a relationship (rather
than from a personal one).
(d) So, having already written "Ervas Eishes Achicha Lo Segaleh" - we learn
from "Ervas Achicha Hi" that one is Chayav for one's maternal brother's wife
as well as for one's paternal one.
2. ... Achoso (rather than from Dodaso) - because it is better to learn
one's own relation from one's own relation, rather than from one's father's.
(a) We do not need a Pasuk to teach us that Eishes Ach who has no children,
and whom his brother divorced, is forbidden (and is even Chayav Kareis),
because the Torah writes "Nidah Hi" (like Rav Huna on the previous Amud).
Neither do we need "Ervas Achicha Hi" to teach us that if his brother died
leaving children, his widow is forbidden to him - we know that from the fact
that the Torah needs to permit her when there are no children.
(b) The Pasuk "Ervas Achiv Gilah" comes to preclude any one of three
contentions, in a case where there are children: that the Yevamah is
permitted to the Yavam as well as to the Shuk; that although the Yavam has
no Mitzvah of Yibum with his deceased brother's wife, he is nevertheless
permitted to marry her; that should he marry her, he contravenes a La'av
ha'Ba mi'Ch'lal Asei (which is only an Asei). "Ervas Achiv Gilah" comes to
teach us that, where the brother leaves over children, the Chiyuv Kareis of
Eishes Achiv remains in full force.
(a) We suggest that Eishes Av min ha'Eim should be permitted after his
brother's death like Eishes Ach min ha'Av. The 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Achvah"
"Achvah" mi'B'nei Ya'akov - will only teach us that there is no Mitzvah of
Yibum, but not that there is a prohibition.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Ervas Achicha *Hi* - that Eishes Ach min ha'Eim
remains forbidden after the death of her husband.
(a) Seeing as we learn the Chiyuv Kareis by all the Arayos from Hekeisha
de'Rebbi Yonah, the Torah writes Kareis by his sister, according to Rebbi
Yochanan, to teach us that one is Chayav for each one - meaning that if one
were to commit all the cases of incest say, by mistake, without realizing in
the middle that it was forbidden, he would be Chayav a Chatas for each
(b) We learn all the other cases from Achoso - because it is a case of
'Davar she'Hayah bi'Ch'lal, ve'Yatza, Lo le'Lamed al Atzmo Yatza, Ela
le'Lamed al ha'K'lal Kulo Yatza'.
(c) According to Rebbi Yitzchak, who learns that one is Chayav a separate
Chatas for each Ervah from "ve'el *Ishah* be'Nidas Tum'asah" - the Torah
writes Kareis by his sister to teach us that Chayvei K'risus receive Kareis,
and not Malkos.
(a) "Aririm" means - to die without children.
(b) The Torah writes "Aririm Yamusu" - to teach us that even the children
that he had before committing this sin, will die before him; and it writes
"Aririm Yihyu" - to teach us that even the children that will be born to him
after it, will die before him, too.
(a) Someone who has relations with a Shifchah - transgresses the La'av of
"Lo Yiheyeh Kadeish".
(b) A Shifchah Charufah - is a Shifchah Kena'anis who is 'betrothed' to an
Eved Ivri, to whom he is permitted (see Rashi in Kedoshim [19:20].
(c) The Lashon "Shichvas Zera" by Shifchah Charufah teaches us - that the
Eved is only Chayav if he completes the Bi'ah (see 8a.), but that other
Chayvei La'avin are Chayav even for Ha'ara'ah.
(d) We cannot learn from the fact that the Torah writes Ha'ara'ah by Chayvei
Kareis, that by Chayvei La'avin, one is not Chayav - because if so, why did
the Torah need to write "Shichvas Zera" by Shifchah Charufah?
(a) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...
1. ... "Kichah" "Kichah" (Chayvei La'avin di'Kehunah from Chayvei K'risus) -
that by La'avin di'Kehunah, one also transgresses the respective La'av
(b) We know that Ha'ara'ah is Asur by a Yevamah le'Shuk - because those who
consider a Yevamah le'Shuk a La'av, learn it from "Shichvas Zera" written by
Shifchah Charufah, and according to those who consider it an Asei - learn it
from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Bi'ah" "Bi'ah".
2. ... "Bi'ah" "Bi'ah" (Chayvei Asei from Chayvei La'avin) - that one
transgresses Chayvei Asei through Ha'ara'ah, too.
(c) A Yevamah le'Shuk might be ...
1. ... a Lo Sa'aseh - from the Pasuk " Lo Sihyeh Eishes ha'Meis ha'Chutzah
(d) We know that ...
2. ... an Asei - from the Pasuk Yevamah Yavo Alehah" (and the previous Pasuk
comes to teach us that Kidushin does not take effect).
1. ... a Yavam acquires his Yevamah through Ha'ara'ah - from the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Bi'ah" ["Yevamah Yavo Eilehah"] "Bi'ah" (from Chayvei
La'avin ["Lo Yavo Mamzer"] - Ki Seitzei).
2. ... if a man betroths a woman through Ha'ara'ah, he acquires her - from
"Kichah" ["Ki Yikach Ish Ishah u'Be'alah" - Ki Seitzei] "Kichah" from
Chayvei K'risus ["ve'Ish Ki Yikach es Achosah"].
(a) The Torah writes "Shichvas-Zera" by Shifchah-Charufah, Eishes-Ish and
Sotah. We have already explained why it does so by Shifchah Charufah. It
comes to exempt the man from a Korban Asham (implying that the woman, whose
punishment is Malkos, gets punished even for Ha'ara'ah).
(b) The Torah writes "Shichvas-Zera" ...
1. ... by Eishes-Ish (according to those who hold that one is Chayav even
for Bi'ah with an Eiver Meis) - to preclude someone who performs Bi'ah with
her after her death (because, seeing as she is still referred to as
"She'eiro'', we may have thought that he will be Chayav).
(c) Rav Sheishes contends that the Pasuk comes to preclude where he warned
her not to perform an unnatural Bi'ah with the suspect (Rashi's second
explanation, with which Tosfos DH 'le'she'Kinei' agrees). Rava refutes ...
2. ... by Sotah - to preclude 'Bi'ah Derech Eivarim' (where he fondles her
and performs Bi'ah over her body).
1. ... Rav Sheishes' contention however - on the grounds that the Torah has
already written "Mishkevei Ishah", giving an unnatural Bi'ah the same Din as
a natural one in this regard.
(d) We reject Abaye's contention, that it comes to preclude when her husband
warned her against the Neshikah of the adulterer (meaning when he performs
Bi'ah by merely touching the woman but without penetration - as we shall
soon see), on the grounds that, according to one opinion, that is considered
Ha'ara'ah (as we shall now see).
2. ... Abaye's rejection of his own explanation (that it comes to preclude
'Derech Eivarim', on the grounds that this is not sufficient cause to make
her a Sotah) - because we might otherwise have thought that seeing as the
Torah contends with the husband's Hakpadah (strict concern), his warning to
that effect will obligate her.
(a) Shmuel proves that Neshikah is called Ha'ara'ah, with a Mashal - to a
man who, when placing his finger on his mouth, is bound to press it.
(b) When Rabah bar bar Chanah came from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel - he quoted
Rebbi Yochanan, who defined G'mar Bi'ah regarding Shifchah Charufah, as
Hachnasas Atarah (slight penetration).
(c) He explains the Beraisa, which defines Shichvas-Zera as Meiruk (meaning
that he injects seed) - to mean Meiruk Atarah (the insertion of the crown
[top section] of the Milah).
(d) Rabah bar bar Chanah defines Ha'ara'ah - as Neshikah.
(a) When Rav Dimi arrived in Bavel, he quoted Yochanan who defined
Ha'ara'ah as Hachnasas Atarah. When they told him that Rabah bar bar Chanah
said otherwise, he retorted - that either Rabah bar bar Chanah was lying or
(b) When Ravin arrived in Bavel, he too, quoted Rebbi Yochanan as defining
Ha'ara'ah as Hachnasas Atarah. Rav Dimi and Ravin definitely disagree with
Rabah bar bar Chanah. It does not necessarily follow however, that they also
disagree with Shmuel, who holds that Neshikah is called Ha'ara'ah - because
perhaps they hold that Ha'ara'ah comprises both.
(c) Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah also arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael. In
his opinion, Rebbi Yochanan defined Ha'ara'ah as Hachnasas Atarah - and
G'mar Bi'ah, as G'mar Bi'ah.
(d) It is not possible to reconcile Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah with Shmuel (that
Neshikah is also included in Ha'ara'ah) like we did Rav Dimi and Ravin -
because he specifically says that anything less than Hachnasas Atarah, is
considered mere Neshikah, for which one is Patur.