(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 62

YEVAMOS 46-65 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) Moshe separated from his wife after Matan Torah (in spite of the fact that he had not yet fulfilled the Mitzvah of Piryah ve'Rivya, according to Beis Hillel) - because he reckoned that, if everyone had to separate from their wives because Hashem spoke to them just once (at Matan Torah), having told them in advance exactly when he would speak to them, then how much more so he, to whom Hashem spoke regularly, without telling him in advance (that he had to be ready in advance at any time that he might be called).

(b) We know that Hashem agreed with him - because He said to him (after Matan Torah) "Lech Emor Lahem, 'Shuvu Lachem le'Ohaleichem! ve'Atah Poh Amod Imadi'! " (Va'eschanan).

(c) He ...

1. ... broke the Luchos - because, he figured, if with regard to the Korban Pesach (which is only *one* of the Taryag Mitzvos), the Torah writes in Bo "Kol ben Neichar Lo Yochal Bo", then how much more so can one not give the Luchos, which contain *all the Mitzvos*, to Yisrael, who are Mumarim.
2. ... added a day to Matan Torah - because Hashem had said (with regard to the separation from their wives) "ha'Yom u'Machar" (comparing today to tomorrow), insinuating that today, like tomorrow, must consist of a full twenty-four hours. Now since this was impossible, seeing as part of the day had already passed, he felt that he had to count the third day instead (to complement the missing full day).
(d) We know that Hashem agreed with him regarding ...
1. ... his breaking of the Luchos - because He subsequently said to him "Asher Shibarta" (a superfluous phrase), which Chazal explain to mean 'Yeyasher she'Shibarta' ('thank you for breaking them').
2. ... adding a day to Matan Torah - because when it came to the crunch, Hashem gave the Torah after three days (and not on the third day, as He had originally intended - though this is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im in Perek Rebbi Akiva in Shabbos).
2) Yisrael ...
1. ... separated from their wives on Wednesday.
2. ... received the Torah - on Shabbos.
(a) Rebbi Nasan learns from a combination of the Pesukim in Bereishis "va'Tosef la'Ledes es Achiv es Hevel" and "Ki Shas Li Elokim Zera Acher *Tachas Hevel* Ki Harago Kayin" - that, when Hevel was murdered, it was necessary to make up for the deficiency by the birth of Sheis (from which we can extrapolate that the two boys and the two girls [one twin with each boy], that Adam had, were necessary). So we see, that two boys and two girls are the minimum requirement for each person.

(b) The Rabbanan of Rebbi Nasan explain that the Pasuk "Ki Shas Li Elokim ... " - was merely an expression of thanks to Hashem on the part of Adam for 'replacing' his lost son.

(c) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Nasan explains the opinion of Beis Shamai like we explained Beis Hillel until now (one boy and one girl). Beis Hillel learn from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Lo Tohu Bera'ah, Lasheves Yetzarah", according to Rebbi Nasan - that one only requires one boy or one girl.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, a Ger who had children before he converted, has fulfilled the Mitzvah of "P'ru u'Revu", and is not obligated to have more children. Resh Lakish disagrees with him on the basis of the principle - 'Ger she'Nisgayer, ke'Katan she'Nolad Dami' (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Yochanan').

(b) They also argue about whether his first son has the Din of a Bechor or not, and for similar reasons. Had they confined their Machlokes to ...

1. ... "P'ru u'Revu" (and not to Nachalah) - we might have thought that that is where Rebbi Yochanan holds that a Ger *has fulfilled his obligation* with the child that he fathered before he converted, because he is included in the obligation (or in the B'rachah) of "P'ru u'Revu", whereas by Nachalah, where the Din of B'chor does not apply to him at all, maybe he will agree with Resh Lakish that he has *not*.
2. ... Nachalah and not to "P'ru u'Revu" - we would have thought that by "P'ru u'Revu" (in which he was included), maybe Resh Lakish agrees with Rebbi Yochanan.
(c) Resh Lakish has no problem with the Pasuk in Melachim 2, which specifically refers to "Morach B'ladan ben B'ladan", indicating that the son of a Nochri is considered his son - because he agrees that, as long as they are Nochrim, they are considered their father's children, and it is only after they have converted that he argues with Rebbi Yochanan, as we explained above.
(a) Rav derives from the Pasuk "Sh'vu Lachem Poh im ha'Chamor" - that (bearing in mind that Eliezer was there) slaves have no Yichus, just like donkeys.

(b) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov reconciles Rav's statement with the Pasuk in Shmuel 2 "u'le'Tziva (the slave of Mefivoshes, Yonasan's son) Chamishah-Asar Banim ve'Esrim Avadim", by comparing this to a 'Par ben Bakar'. We cannot say the same by the son of a Nochri, which we learned from "Morach B'ladan ben B'ladan" - seeing as there, the Navi specifically mentioned his name.

(c) Alternatively, we answer this Kashya with the Pasuk "va'Yeshal'chem ha'Melech Asa el ben-Hadad ben Tavrimon ben Chezyon Melech Aram ... " - from the fact that it even goes so far as to mention his grandfather (which is indicative of humans, and not of a Par ben Bakar).

(a) According to Rav Huna, if someone's children died, he has nevertheless fulfilled the Mitzvah of "P'ru u'Revu". Rebbi Yochanan says that he has not - because he has not fulfilled the Mitzvah of "la'Sheves Yetzarah" (the basis of "P'ru u'Revu").

(b) Rav Huna's reason is based on a statement by Rav Asi, who based on the Pasuk "Ki Ru'ach mi'Lefanai Ya'atof" - explains that the main function of "P'ru u'Revu" is to draw the Neshamos from the source known as 'Guf' (thereby bringing the Mashi'ach closer - because, the moment all the Neshamos have been withdrawn from 'Guf', Mashi'ach will come).

(c) Rav Huna establishes the Beraisa 'B'nei Banim Harei Hein ke'Banim' (which we initially thought to mean that if the son or daughter who died did not have a child, his father would not fulfill the Mitzvah, despite the fact that he had another daughter or son) - in a case when he only one son to begin with; and that son then married and his wife gave birth to a daughter.

(d) The Tana of another Beraisa says that - 'B'nei Banim Harei Heim ke'Banim. Meis Achad Meihem O she'Nimtza S'ris, Lo Kiyem Piryah ve'Rivyah', a clear disproof to Rav Huna.




(a) Rava learns from "la'Sheves Yetzarah" that 'B'nei Banim, Harei Hein ke'Banim' incorporates any combination of child and grandchild (e.g. a son to a son and a daughter to a daughter) - except for a son's daughter, who will not combine with a remaining son or daughter (see Hagahos ha'Gra).

(b) Abaye and Rava both agree that even though he has two grandchildren, he will not have fulfilled his obligation - should they both be the children of one of his children, and he has no other children, or he did have, but he died.

(c) When Rav Sheishes told the Rabbanan (who suggested that he gets married and has children) that he had fulfilled the Mitzvah with his daughter's children - he was only putting them off, because he was sterile, and unable to father more children anyway.

(d) Rav Sheishes became sterile from the Derashah of Rav Huna.

(a) Rava suggests that we might learn from the Pasuk in Vayeitzei, where Lavan said "ha'Banos Benosai ve'ha'Banim Banai" that 'B'nei Banim Harei Hein ke'Banim' - because the sons that he refers to as his own, were really his daughters' sons (seeing as Rachel, Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah were all his daughters).

(b) He nevertheless declined to learn it from there - because, taking his cue from "ha'Tzon Tzoni" (which can only refer to the sheep that Ya'akov had acquired thanks to him), he explains "ha'Banim Banai" to mean 'These are the sons that you bore grace a moi'.

(c) Rava finally learns 'B'nei Banim ... ' from the two Pesukim "Mini Machir Yardu Mechokekim" and "Yehudah Mechokeki". According to the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim - Chetzron married Machir's daughter. Consequently, when the Pasuk writes "Mini Machir Yardu Mechokekim" - he must really have meant from the sons of Machir's daughter, which the Pasuk reckons like Machir's own sons.

(a) The author of our Mishnah, which permits a person to refrain from having children once he has fulfilled the basic Mitzvah, cannot be Rebbi Yehoshua - who learns from the Pasuk in Koheles "ba'Boker Z'ra es Zar'acha, ve'la'Erev al Tanach Yadecha" - that a man who lost his wife is obligated to marry again even in his old age, and to continue having children even after he has fulfilled the Mitzvah. Rav Masna rules like Rebbi Yehoshua.

(b) The reason for this is - because of the likelihood that the second time will prove to be more successful than the first.

(c) Rebbi Akiva had twelve thousand Talmidim 'from Geives till Antipras' - all of whom died from Askara (croup - see Agados Maharsha) because they did not behave towards each other with respect.

(d) The names of the five Talmidim whom he later raised in the south, and who reinstated Torah were - Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yossi, Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua.

(a) Rebbi Tanchum bar Chanila'i learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Samachta Atah u'Veisecha" - that someone who has no wife, lives without joy.
2. ... "Lehani'ach B'rachah el Beisecha" - that he is devoid of blessing
3. ... "Lo Tov Heyos ha'Adam Levado" - that he lives without goodness.
(b) In Eretz Yisrael, they added to the list, Torah and protection (a wall). Rava bar Ula adds from the Pasuk "ve'Yada'at ki Sh'lom Ohalech u'Fakad't Navech ve'Lo Secheta" - peace.
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns from the Pasuk "ve'El Ishech Teshukasech" - that a man is obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of Onah with his wife before setting out on a journey, because his wife feels particularly close to him at that time.

(b) From the Pasuk "ve'Yada'at ki Sh'lom Ohalech" he adds - that this even applies when she is Samuch le'Vestah (refer to d.) ...

(c) ... but not if he is about to leave for a D'var Mitzvah - because he is already busy with a Mitzvah (and Chazal have said 'ha'Osek be'Mitzvah Patur min ha'Mitzvah'), or because he might become engrossed in Tashmish, and negate the Mitzvah.

(d) When a woman is Samuch le'Veses (i.e. the twelve-hour period during which she is due to have a sighting of blood - that day or that night) - her husband is forbidden to have relations with her (provided he is not about to set out on a journey).

(a) Based on yet another Derashah from the Pasuk in Iyov, the Tana in the Beraisa advises a man how to treat his wife and his children - he should love her as much as he loves himself, and honor her even more than he honors himself.

(b) The reason for this latter statement - because a woman is more sensitive (to self-dignity) than a man.

(c) He says that ...

1. ... one should educate one's sons and daughters - to go on the right path.
2. ... he should marry them off - shortly before they become Gedolim (see Tosfos DH 'Samuch').
(d) Based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Az Tikra va'Hashem Ya'aneh Teshava, ve'Yomar Hineini", the Tana adds that one should ...
1. ... love one's neighbors.
2. ... maintain close ties with one's relatives.
3. ... marries one's sister's daughter.
4. ... lend money to a poor man who is hard-pressed.
Next daf


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