(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 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 immediately.

(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 her).

(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 necessary).

(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.
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 before)
(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'.

(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.

(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 reason.

(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)?

6) 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)?




(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' proof.

(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 ... ").

(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).

9) 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.


(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 Chalalah.

(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 forbidden Bi'ah.
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 her.
(c) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon concede that, once they marry, she is forbidden - because, as we just explained, she becomes a Chalalah.

(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 it.

(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 *anybody* Terumah).

(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).

Next daf


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