ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 58
YEVAMOS 46-60 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) According to Rami bar Chama, the question of whether 'Yesh Chupah
li'P'sulos' or not, is dependent upon the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir on
the one hand, and Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon on the other - According to
Rebbi Meir, who maintain that Kidushin of P'sulin forbids her to eat, so
does Chupah; whereas according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, just as
Kidushin of P'sulin does not forbid her to eat, neither does Chupah.
(b) Rami bar Chama is referring to Chupah without Kidushin.
(c) We reject Rami bar Chama's contention however, on the grounds that ...
1. ... even Rebbi Meir may agree that Chupah *does not invalidate* her from
eating Terumah - because, in his opinion, Chupah is not Koneh (without
2. ... Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon may agree that it *does* - because they
only argue with Rebbi Meir by Kidushin, since it does *not lead to Bi'ah*,
but by Chupah, which *does*, they will agree with him.
(a) The Beraisa which states '*Nis'u* ... Kesheiros u'Pesulos, *O*
she'Nichnesu le'Chupah ve'Lo Niv'alu', Ochlos me'Shelo ve'Ochlos
bi'Terumah', cannot be correct, because it is inconceivable that a Bi'ah
Pesulah should permit a woman to eat Terumah. So - we replace the word 'O'
with 'K'gon', in which case 'she'Nichnesu le'Chupah ve'Lo Niv'alu' comes to
explain 'Nis'u' (rather than to add to it).
(b) Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah says - that whenever
Bi'ah feeds a woman Terumah, so does Chupah and vice-versa.
(c) We suggest that Rebbi Yishmael follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir (who
holds that Kidushin Pesulin do not feed her - and that is why Chupah does
not feed her either). We refute the Kashya that, in that case, he ought to
have said 'Kol she'Ein Bi'asah Ma'achilasah, Ein *Kaspah* Ma'achilasah'
(rather than 'Ein *Chupasah* Ma'achilasah') - on the grounds that he simply
took his cue from the Tana Kama - who mentioned Chupah, so he did too.
(a) The Mishnah in Sotah states that a Sotah says 'Amen' twice to the oath
that the Kohen makes on her behalf, to incorporate the three cases: that she
did not sin 1. whilst she was betrothed to her husband, 2. whilst she was
married or 3. whilst she was a Shomeres Yavam. Despite the fact that a
Shomeres Yavam is only a Chayvei La'avin, the Kohen nevertheless
incorporates that in the oath as well - according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds
that Kidushin does not take effect on Chayvei La'avin.
(b) Regarding the case of 'betrothed ... ', the Tana cannot be referring to
a case ...
1. ... when they were not yet married at the time that she took the oath -
because a woman who is betrothed but not married is not subjected to the
drinking ordeal (to which end the oath is taken).
(c) According to Rav Sheishes - the Tana is speaking in a case when he
warned her whilst she was still an Arusah, and then, after she became a
Sotah, he married with Chupah but without Bi'ah.
2. ... when they were already married, and he had already performed Bi'ah
with her - because of the Pasuk "ve'Nikah ha'Ish me'Avon", from which we
learn that the miracle of the water is only effective if the man himself is
clean from sin (including not having had Bi'ah with her between the time she
became a Sotah and the oath).
(d) Clearly, according to Rav Sheishes, he acquires her with Chupah (seeing
as an Arusah, even though she is Pasul to him) - a proof that 'Yesh Chupah
(a) The Tana (of the Beraisa quoted by Rav Acha bar Chanina from the Darom)
learns from the Pasuk in Naso "mi'Bal'adei Ishech" - that the husband's
Bi'ah must precede that of the adulterer for the water to take effect ...
(b) ... in which case, Rav Sheishes explanation leaves us with the Kashya -
How can Chupah without Bi'ah render her a Sotah?
(c) Rami bar Chama answers this Kashya - by establishing the Mishnah when he
had relations with her whilst they were betrothed, before she became a
(d) We try to explain Shomeres Yavam in the Mishnah in Sotah in the same
way - when the Yavam had relations with her whilst she was still a Shomeres
Yavam, and then, after the warning and after she became a Sotah, he married
her with Chupah, but without Bi'ah.
(a) We just established the case of Yevamah le'Shuk (in the Mishnah) when,
after she became widowed, the Yavam first had relations with her, then
warned her not to commit adultery, and finally married her with Chupah.
The problem with that is - that he should then have acquired her when he had
relations with her (because we have already learned that he acquires her
be'Shogeg just like be'Meizid).
(b) There would be no problem with this according to Shmuel - who said above
that a Bi'as Shogeg only acquires her with regard to the two things
mentioned in the Pasuk, but not to make her his wife (and the connotation of
Nesu'ah [as opposed to Arusah] is that she is his wife; only according to
Rav - who said that a Bi'as Shogeg acquires her completely.
(c) We cannot establish the Mishnah like Shmuel - because Rav Sheishes (the
author of our Sugya) is coming to substantiate Rav, who said earlier 'Yesh
(a) So we establish the author of the Mishnah as Beis Shamai, who say that
Ma'amar is Koneh completely - to make her an Arusah. Consequently, the Zikah
has been removed, and the Bi'ah that he made with her does not acquire her,
since what is required after Kidushin is Chupah, and not Bi'ah.
(b) According to Beis Hillel, Ma'amar does not have any significant status,
in which case, the Bi'ah that he made after it acquired her, making her a
(c) Although Arusah and Nesu'ah on the one hand, and Shomeres Yavam and
Kenusah on the other, are one and the same, the Tana nevertheless found it
necessary to mention them both - because the former pertains to the woman
that he himself betrothed and that he himself married, the latter, to the
woman that he betrothed through his brother, and that he married through him
(and it is the way of the Tana to list things in this way).
(a) According to Rashi's second Lashon, we establish the Mishnah like Beis
Shamai, who maintain that Ma'amar is fully Koneh (without Bi'ah). The
problem of 'Kadmah Sh'chivas Ba'al le'Bo'el' does not apply here - because
the Bi'ah of her late husband did precede that of the Bo'eil.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves all the problems by establishing the
Mishnah by 'Gilgul Shevu'ah' - meaning that the Tana is speaking about a
married Sotah whom her husband did not warn whilst she was betrothed
(neither of course, can she have contravened his warning). In fact,
everything took place after the marriage. However, through Gilgul Shevu'ah,
the husband is able to make her swear that she did not commit adultery
during their betrothal either. Needless to say, all the above specifications
that apply to a Sotah, do not apply to the contingency of her having sinned
then. This is the Chidush of Gilgul Shevu'ah', which is derived from here.
(b) Rav Papa establishes the case of Arusah even if Chupah is not Koneh. He
resolves the Mishnah according to the Tana of a Beraisa - who says that
although one cannot warn an Arusah to give her to drink whilst she is an
Arusah, one can warn her then that she will have to drink after she becomes
(c) The case of Arusah is now when he warned her not to commit adultery
whilst they were betrothed, and that is when she became a Sotah. Then he
married her and took her to the Kohen (to drink the special water); and this
Tana holds neither of 'Kadmah Sh'chivas Ba'al le'Bo'eil', nor of the
Derashah of "ve'Nikah ha'Ish me'Avon" as we Darshened it above - see Tosfos
DH 'Rav Papa'. It is not possible to explain that he warned her whilst
they were betrothed, and then, after he married her and was Bo'eil her, she
became a Sotah - because how could she then insert in her oath 'she'Lo
Satisi Arusah', when in fact, she became a Sotah when she was already a
(a) Rebbi Chanina in the name of Rebbi Yochanan says that a Kohen who makes
Ma'amar with his Yevamah when there is another brother, invalidates her from
eating Terumah - because she is now waiting for a Bi'ah Pesulah (namely,
that of the brother who did not perform Yibum, and who is forbidden to him,
though his Bi'ah will be effective - seeing as 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Bi'ah').
(b) We query this however, even according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Meir, who forbids an Almanah who is betrothed to a Kohen Gadol
to eat Terumah, for the very reason of Mishtameres le'Bi'ah Pesulah - on the
grounds that that only applies in the case of a Bi'ah Pesulah d'Oraysa, but
not in our case, where Bi'ah Achar Ma'amar is only an Isur de'Rabbanan.
(c) Ravin quoting Rebbi Yochanan therefore says that ...
2. ... Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, who permit it - because if they permit
a woman who is waiting for a Bi'ah Pesulah d'Oraysa to eat Terumah, then why
would they even need to mention it in a case of one who is waiting for a
Bi'ah Pesulah de'Rabbanan?
1. ... in this case - even Resh Lakish will agree (see 10a.) that *she is
permitted to eat Terumah* (even according to Rebbi Meir).
2. ... in a case where the brother is a Chalal - even Rebbi Yochanan will
agree that she is *not* (even according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon),
because she is waiting for a Bi'as Chalal, which is an P'sul d'Oraysa.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue, according to Ravin, when the Yavam
Kohen gave the Yevamah a Get. The reason of ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan, who says that even according to Rebbi Meir, she is
permitted to eat Terumah - is as we explained above: because she is waiting
for a Bi'ah Pesulah de'Rabbanan.
(b) According to Resh Lakish, the difference between this case, and that of
'Chozeres' (a woman who returns to her father's house on account of the
Get), who is permitted to eat Terumah - is that, whereas a Chozeres has
broken with her husband and now reverts to her father's house, a Yevamah who
receives a Get, is still tied to the Yavam.
2. ... Resh Lakish, who says that even according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi
Shimon she is forbidden - because it is only Bi'ah, which normally *has the
power to feed Terumah*, that does not invalidate her from eating; but not a
Get, which does *not* (even though it only creates a P'sul de'Rabbanan).