(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 65

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



(a) If a man divorced his wife because she bore him no children, she married again, and the same story repeated itself - she is permitted to get married a third time (even according to Rebbi who holds that two times creates a Chazakah), but only to someone who has already fulfilled the Mitzvah of "P'ru u'R'vu".

(b) If she marries someone who has not, her Din will differ from the first two times - inasmuch as she will not receive a Kesubah (whereas the first two times, she did).

(c) Should her third marriage not produce children either, the first two husbands cannot then demand that, now that her infertility has been proven, she must return the Kesubah - because she can say that until now, she was able to have children (and the first two times, it was *their* Mazel that caused their childlessnes), and it is only now that she became weak (because the Chazakah does not help to extract the money that she has already claimed. See Tosfos Yeshanim).

(a) If, after subsequently marrying a fourth man and bearing him a child, the woman demands her Kesubah from her third husband, on the grounds that it must have been *his* Mazel that caused them not to have children - we initially think to advise her to remain silent, because if she persists with her claim, her former husband will counter that, in that case, he would never have divorced her, rendering the Get that he gave her invalid, and the children from her current husband, Mamzeirim.

(b) Rav Papa refutes this suggestion on the grounds that - if that were so, then Beis-Din would be obligated to take the initiative and absolve her fourth marriage anyway. Why would we need to wait for her previous husband to say it?

(c) If her third husband does indeed claim that the Get that he gave her is nullified (and her children from her fourth husband are Mamzeirim) - we ignore his claim, on the grounds that she probably was sterile at the time when they were married (as was borne out by the Chazakah), and it is now that she became cured.

(a) Should the husband claim that it is *her* fault that they have no children, and she claims that it is *his* - we believe her, because of the presumption that she knows better than he does, whether his Zera is Yoreh ke'Chetz (and therefore fit to germinate) or not.

(b) The difference whose fault it is, despite the fact that he intends to divorce her anyway is - with regard to whether she receives her Kesubah or not.

(c) If the husband threatens to marry another woman to put the matter to the test - Rebbi Ami rules that he is forbidden to put his threat into practice, and that, if he does, he will be obligated to divorce his wife and pay her Kesubah.

(d) Rava disagrees. According to him - a man is permitted to marry as many wives as he wishes (as long as he is able to provide for them).




(a) The man might claim that his wife had a miscarriage during the ten years that they were married - in order to delay the beginning of the ten years waiting period without having had children.

(b) Should his wife deny it - we will believe her, because of the Chazakah that a woman would not declare herself sterile (unless she really was).

(c) If the woman had three miscarriages - then he must (marry another wife or) divorce her and pay her Kesubah, because 'maybe it was *he* who did not merit to have children from her'.

(d) If her husband claimed that she had had only *two* miscarriages (in which case he is not obligated to divorce or to marry a second wife), and she counters that she had *three* - she would be believed, too, because otherwise, a woman would not establish herself to have a Chazakah of miscarriages (unless it was true).

(a) According to the Tana Kama, the Mitzvah of "P'ru u'Revu" does not pertain to a woman. Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah says - that it does, because the Pasuk in Bereishis "va'Yevarech Osam Elokim va'Yomer Lahem P'ru u'R'vu ... " was said to both of them.

(b) According to Rav Yosef, the Rabbanan derive their opinion from the Pasuk in Vayishlach "Ani Keil Shakai, P'rei u'R'vei" (written in the singular); whereas in the opinion of Rebbi Ila'a Mishum Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, they learn it from the Pasuk in Bereishis "u'Mil'u es ha'Aretz *ve'Chivshuhah*" - from which they learn that the Mitzvah is confined to men, whose way it is to conquer.

(c) We justify this D'rashah, despite the fact that ve'Chivshuhah" appears in the plural - because that is only as far as the *reading* of the word is concerned. but as far as the *spelling* goes, it is written without a 'vav' (to read "ve'Chavshah" - in the singular).

(a) When Rebbi Ila'a Mishum Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon said that just as it is a Mitzvah to say something that will be heard, so too is it a Mitzvah to refrain from saying something that will not be heard - he meant that it is a Mitzvah to refrain from rebuking someone whom one knows for sure will not accept his rebuke.

(b) Based on the Pasuk in Mishlei "Al Tochi'ach Letz Pen Yisna'eka", Rebbi Aba comments - that one is even obligated to refrain from doing so.

(c) The Pasuk in Mishlei concludes - "Hochei'ach le'Chacham ve'Ye'ehaveka".

(a) Rebbi Ila'a Mishum Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon learns that one is permitted to lie because of Darkei Shalom - from Yosef's brothers, who told Yosef that their father had instructed them before his death, to go and appease him for what they had done to him (even though he had said no such thing).

(b) Rebbi Nasan extrapolates from the Pasuk in Shmuel 1 "va'Yomer Shmuel, Eich Eilech ve'Shama Shaul va'Haragani" that it is even a Mitzvah to do so - because otherwise, Hashem would not have subsequently responded by instructing him to pretend that he had really come to offer a sacrifice (to cover up his real reason for his having come).

(c) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael's source for saying 'Gadol ha'Shalom'! - is also Hashem, who told Avraham that Sarah had said '*va'Adoni* Zakein', when what she had really said was '*va'Ani* Zakanti'.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi argue over whether the Halachah is like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah in our Mishnah (who maintains that a woman is included in the Mitzvah of "P'ru u'Revu" just like the man) or not. We try and prove from the fact that, when Rebbi Avahu quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah', Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi turned away from him - that Rebbi Yochanan is the one who holds 'Ein Halachah ... '.

(b) They did not simply correct him - because he was close to the king, and it would not have respectful to tell him that he had made a mistake.

(c) Others switch Rebbi Avahu for Rebbi Chiya bar Aba. Rav Papa objects to this switch however - on the grounds that, if so, why did they not just correct him and tell him that Rebbi Yochanan had never said such a thing.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan told that man who came to him in the Shul in Caesaria with his wife, who was demanding a Get from him because her marriage had produced no children - that he should give her a Get and pay her Kesubah.

(b) We try to determine from there - that Rebbi Yochanan must hold like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, because if he held like the Chachamim, then why would he have made him pay her Kesubah?

(c) We refute this proof however - on the grounds that she might have claimed that she wanted a divorce for other practical reasons (see 10a., - and not just because she wanted children), in which case her claim is upheld and she receives her Kesubah.

(a) When Rebbi Zeira and Rav Nachman told the women (independently) that they were not entitled to a Kesubah, since they were not commanded to fulfill the Mitzvah - the one said that she wanted a son to look after her when she became old, the other, that she wished for a stick for her old age and a spade for her grave.

(b) Rebbi Zeira and Rav Nachman respectively, agreed with them - and ordered their husbands to pay their Kesubah.

(a) The names of Rebbi Chiya and Yehudis' twins -were Yehudah and Chizkiyah.

(b) When Yehudis heard from her husband that a woman is not obligated to have children - she drank a potion that made her sterile, to avoid the excessive labor-pains that she experienced at child-birth.

(c) When he heard what his wife had done - Rebbi Chiya commented that he wished that she would bear him another set of twins like the set they already had (Rav Yehudah and Chizkiyah).

(d) Besides them they had also had a set of twin sisters.

12) The reason that the Chachamim forced someone to set free his half-freed Shifchah Kena'anis (despite the fact that a woman is not obligated to have children) - was because she was constantly being abused.

***** Hadran Alach, ha'Ba al Yevimto *****

Next daf


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