ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 56
YEVAMOS 46-60 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) According to Rav, a Yavam acquires his Yevamah completely with any of
the inferior Bi'os referred to in our Mishnah; according to Shmuel, he only
acquires her regarding the two points mentioned in the Parshah - to acquire
his brother's property and to exempt her from any further Yibum.
(b) One of the three ramifications of 'le'Potrah min ha'Yibum' is that
should the Yavam die having had children from another wife, she is Muteres
le'Shuk - the other two are: 1. that should he subsequently give her a Get,
she does not require Chalitzah; 2. that her Tzarah is permitted to marry
(c) According to Rav - she is also permitted to eat Terumah if the Yavam is
a Kohen (even if he went overseas immediately without making Bi'ah with
(d) According to the first Lashon, even Shmuel will agree that he acquires
her completely if she fell to Yibum after they were married - because she
had already been eating Terumah when her husband died.
(a) Having established the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel by a Yevamah who
fell to Yibum after *betrothal*, Rav holds that the Torah includes Bi'as
Shogeg like Meizid irrespective; whereas according to Shmuel - the Torah
only includes Bi'as Shogeg, to give her *the same status* as she had when
she was with her husband, but not *more*.
(b) In a case where the Yavam performed a proper Bi'ah - Shmuel will agree
that he acquires her completely (even more than the husband had done, if
(c) Shmuel's previous statement conforms with another statement issued by
Rav Nachman in his name - that whenever her husband fed her Terumah, the
Yavam may feed her too ... .
(a) According to the Tana of the Beraisa, if a bas Yisrael was betrothed to
a Kohen, she is ...
1. ... not permitted to eat Terumah (after the marriage) - if he became a
Cheresh before the marriage.
(b) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel (quoted in the previous question) will have a
problem with this Beraisa the way it stands. Consequently, he adds 'Kanas
ve'Achar-Kach Nischaresh, Ocheles' before 'Meis ve'Naflah Lifnei Yavam'.
2. ... permitted to eat Terumah - if he married her, and then died, and she
fell to a Yavam who was also a Cheresh (even though she was not able to eat
(c) The final words of the Beraisa 'be'Zu Yafeh Ko'ach ha'Yavam mi'Ko'ach
ha'Ba'al' - refer to the fact that the Yavam feeds her Terumah even if he
was a Cheresh before she fell to Yibum, something which the husband could
not have done (as the Beraisa specifically states in the Reisha).
(a) In the second Lashon, Rav and Shmuel both agree that if she fell to
Yibum from the betrothal, the Yevamah is not permitted to eat Terumah (by
means of Ha'ara'ah). They argue over - whether she is permitted to eat
Terumah if she fell to Yibum after they had been married. Rav holds like
Shmuel held in the first Lashon; whereas according to Shmuel, she is not
permitted to eat even though she had been eating beforehand, because the
Torah only validated a weak Bi'ah by a Yavam with regards to the two issues
mentioned in that Parshah, but not in any other regard.
(b) We now amend the statement of Rav Nachman quoting Shmuel, who said that
whenever the husband fed his wife, the Yavam may feed his Yevamah to read -
'Kol Bi'ah she'ha'Ba'al Ma'achil Bah, Yavam Ma'achil Bah ... '.
(c) Rav will explain the Beraisa (which permits a bas Yisrael who fell from
a Kohen who had become a Cheresh before they were married, and who then fell
to his brother who was a Cheresh, to eat Terumah), like Shmuel explained it
in the first Lashon - but Shmuel has no way of explaining it. We remain with
a Kashya on him.
(a) A bas Yisrael married to a Kohen who became a Cheresh before the
marriage, is permitted to eat Terumah when she has a son from him.
We answer that the Tana only mentions 'the son' to teach us that when there
is a son, the Rabbanan concede that she is permitted to eat. It is not
possible to explain that Rebbi Nasan really argues with the Rabbanan even in
the Reisha (in the case when there is no son), only he waited until the
Rabbanan had finished both of their statements before arguing with them -
because, if that is so, the Tana should have quoted the Rabbanan in the
Reisha and then Rebbi Nasan: 'Meis ha'Ben, Einah Ocheles; Rebbi Nasan Omer,
Ocheles'. Why did he precede Rebbi Nasan's statement to that of the Rabbanan
(insinuating that Rebbi Nasan argues with the Rabbanan specifically when
there is a son, in which case it is clear that he only permits her to eat
because of the son)?
(b) According to the Chachamim, if her son dies, she may no longer eat
Terumah. Abaye refutes Rabah, who explains that Rebbi Nasan permits her to
eat because, since she has already eaten, she may continue to do so - on the
grounds that, in that case, a bas Yisrael who was married to a Kohen, should
be permitted to continue eating Terumah even after he dies, for the same
(c) We do not apply the Sevara of 'Ho'il she'K'var Achlah' in either case,
because, once her husband dies, the Kedushas Kehunah departs from her, so
why should the fact that she once ate make any difference?
(d) Abaye refutes Rav Yosef, who explains Rebbi Nasan's reason to be
because intrinsically, the marriage of a Kohen Cheresh *feeds his wife
Terumah*, and Chazal did not decree on the marriage of a Cheresh on account
of betrothal (which *does not*) - because, if that were so, why would the
Tana need to add the fact that a son was born to her (seeing as even without
a son, she is permitted to eat)?
(a) Rav Sheishes taught Rav Amram that the wife of a Yisrael who was raped,
and who is permitted to her husband - is nevertheless forbidden to marry a
Kohen (in the event of her husband's death).
(b) Rav Sheishes understood the Seifa of our Mishnah (which says that the
same applies to someone who has relations with one of the Arayos - to
pertain to the Reisha, which states that there is no difference between
Shogeg and Meizid, *O'nes* and Ratzon, yet the Tana concludes 'Paslah' (a
proof for his ruling).
(c) We try to refute his proof by explaining that 've'Chein ... ' refers to
Ha'ara'ah or to unnatural relations with any of the Arayos. But that cannot
possible be correct - because this suggests that we learn Ha'ara'ah and
she'Lo ke'Darkah by Arayos from Yibum, when in reality, it is by Arayos that
the Torah writes Ha'ara'ah and "Mishkevei Ishah", and not by Yibum.
(d) 've'Chein ... ' might also refer to unnatural relations with Chayvei
La'avin (by whom "Mishkevei Ishah" is not written), negating Rav Sheishes'
(a) We amend Rabah's statement: 'Eishes Kohen she'Ne'ensah, Ba'alah Lokeh
Alehah Mishum Zonah' - to read '*Af* Mishum Zonah', because he certainly
contravenes the La'av of Tum'ah ("Acharei Asher Hutama'ah ... Lo Yuchal
Ba'alah ha'Rishon ... ").
According to the second Lashon of Rabah - an Eishes Kohen who was raped
retains the Isur Tum'ah, but not that of Zonah, because a woman who is raped
cannot be termed a Zonah.
(b) We know that an Eishes Yisrael who was raped is permitted to her
husband - from the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Hi Lo Nispasah" from which Chazal infer
'Ha Nispasah, Muteres'.
(c) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from there - that there is another case,
where the woman remains forbidden to her husband, even though she was raped;
namely, that of an Eishes Kohen.
(d) Rebbi Zeira asks on Rabah from the Beraisa, where it appears that an
Eishes Kohen who was raped is no more than a 'La'av ha'Ba mi'K'lal Asei'
(which is only an Asei) and not the La'av of Tum'ah. Rabah answers - that,
once we preclude an Eishes Kohen from the concession of O'nes, she retains
the original Isur (that of Tum'ah).
(a) According to the Tana Kama (Rebbi Meir), the moment a Kohen Gadol
betroths a bas Kohen who is a widow, or a Kohen Hedyot, a divorcee, they
(the women) are already forbidden to eat Terumah. Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi
Shimon say - that they remain permitted until he is Bo'eil her, making her a
(b) Assuming that this Machlokes extends to a bas Yisrael (who is permitted
to eat Terumah when she becomes betrothed to a Kohen, according to the
Mishnah Rishonah in Kesubos) ...
1. ... Rebbi Meir forbids her to eat Terumah - because she is waiting for a
(c) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon concede that, once they marry, she is
forbidden - because, as we just explained, she becomes a Chalalah.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon do not forbid her to do so - because
firstly, she is his 'Kinyan Kaspo' (whom the Torah permits to eat Terumah),
and secondly, she does not become a Chalalah until he performs Bi'ah with
(d) Should either of them divorce her or die after they are married, the bas
Kohen remains forbidden to eat Terumah, and the bas Yisrael, to marry a
Kohen. If they died after the betrothal (but before the marriage) - Rebbi
Meir agrees that they are permitted, since he only forbade them as to eat
Terumah long as the betrothed men were alive, because they were waiting for
a Pasul Bi'ah, but once they die, there is no longer any reason to forbid
(a) Rebbi Meir learns the prohibition of the above women to eat Terumah (or
to marry a Kohen) even after Eirusin from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - from Kidushei
Reshus (of a Yisrael who betrothed a bas Kohen), which does not permit her
to eat Terumah, then how much more so will Kidushei Aveirah not permit the
betrothed woman to eat Terumah.
(b) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon reject Rebbi Meir's 'Kal va'Chomer' - on
the grounds that whereas the Yisrael in Kidushei Reshus *does not feed*
anybody Terumah, the Kohen in Kidushei Aveirah *does* (feed other women -
who are not divorced or widowed, Terumah).
(a) Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya maintains that whether or not, a Kohen
who is a P'tzu'a Daka (whose Beitzim are crushed) may feed the bas Yisrael
whom he betrothed, Terumah - depends on the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir
(who will forbid it) and Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon (who will permit).
(b) We refute this explanation - on the grounds that even Rebbi Elazar and
Rebbi Shimon will agree here, that she is forbidden to eat Terumah, because
(unlike the Kohanim in our Mishnah, the Kohen P'tzu'a Daka cannot feed
(c) We cannot answer that here too, he is able to feed a bas Geirim -
because that was precisely what Rebbi Yochanan asked Rebbi Oshaya and he was
unable to answer him (this will be explained shortly).