ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 99
YEVAMOS 99 (1 Adar Bet, 5760) - dedicated in honor of the Yahrzeit of
Mordecai ben Elimelech Shmuel Kornfeld, who perished in the Holocaust along
with most of his family. May the martyrs of the Holocaust atone for Klal
Yisrael like Korbanos and bring, in their merit, the return of Hashem to
Tziyon, speedily in our days.
(a) The Tana informs us that (in the case of a Safek) it is possible to
perform Chalitzah with one's blood-relatives. One would come to perform
Chalitzah with ...
1. ... one's mother - if two women who each had a son, bore two more sons
who became mixed-up. Each of the known sons then married the woman who was
not his mother and died. Each of the two mixed-up sons is now obligated to
perform Chalitzah with both women because he does know which of them is his
mother and which one, his Yevamah.
(b) Rashi declines to explain this latter case when the brothers of each of
the two husbands marries one of the daughters and dies, leaving the original
husbands to perform Chalitzah, each one with his Yevamah, who may in fact,
be his own daughter - because that is not what is implied by 'Achoso
mi'Safek' (but rather 'Safek Achoso' - which is not what the Tana said).
2. ... one's sister - if his mother and another woman both gave birth to a
daughter (his mother from a second husband [who was not his father]) and the
two become mixed-up. Later, when they grow-up, his two paternal (but not
maternal) brothers marry the two women and die, leaving them both to their
brother for Yibum (though one of the two women is his maternal sister). He
has no option but to perform Chalitzah with both women because he does not
know which one is his Yevamah and which one his sister.
3. ... one's daughter - if his wife and another woman gave birth to two
girls who became mixed-up. Later, when they grew up, his two brothers
married the two women and died. He has no option but to perform Chalitzah
with both women because he does not know which one is his Yevamah and which
one his daughter.
(a) If one bought an Eved and a Shifchah from a Nochri, their two sons are
Nochrim, because as long as they are not bought by Jews, they are not Avadim
(since a Nochri cannot acquire an Eved from another Nochri, as we learned
above on Daf 46a.).
(b) If one of two such brothers were to convert, following which the owner
Toveled the two parents as Avadim, and they then had a third child - the
parents would have now produced a Nochri, a Ger and an Eved.
(c) Rebbi Meir states the possibility of those parents ending up with
children of *five* 'nationalities'. This would be the case if - after he set
the Shifchah free, the Eved had relations with her and she bore him another
son (a Mamzer) Then, if he subsequently set the Eved free too, and the two
of them married and had a fifth son, he would be a fully-fledged Jew;
leaving them with sons from five 'nationalities': a Jew, a Ger, a Mamzer, a
Nochri and an Eved.
(d) Rebbi Meir's chief Chidush is - that 'Akum ve'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael,
(a) The Beraisa presents the possibility of a son selling his father to pay
for his mother's Kesubah. The case would be if someone bought an Eved and a
Shifchah and they had a son. He then set the Shifchah free, married her,
bequeathed all his property (including his slave [the son's own father] to
the son) and died. Now the woman claims her property from the heir.
(b) The Chidush, the Gemara explains, lies in the fact that the author of
this Beraisa too (the Seifa of the previous one), is Rebbi Meir (who
considers Avadim like Metaltelin [movable goods] - in this regard [see
Tosfos DH 'Mani']), and he is teaching us here that even Metaltelin are
mortgaged for a woman's Kesubah.
(c) If the author of the Beraisa would be the Chachamim of Rebbi Meir - then
the Chidush would be that, in spite of the fact that Avadim move, they have
the Din of Karka (ground) like they do in all other areas of Halachah, and
(a) A woman's son became mixed-up with the son of her daughter-in-law. The
two boys grew up, married and died. The other sons of the daughter-in-law
perform Chalitzah with their wives, but not Yibum - in case the woman is
their aunt (their uncle's wife), who is forbidden.
(b) The sons of the mother-in-law on the other hand, are even permitted to
perform Yibum, should they wish - because, even if the woman is not their
Yevamah, she will be their niece, who is permitted.
(c) Should the sons who are known, die ...
1. ... each of the mixed-up sons performs Chalitzah with the wife of the
mother-in law's son, but not Yibum, in case she is his aunt.
2. ... one of them performs Chalitzah with the wife of the
daughter-in-law's son (in case she is his Yevamah) and the second one,
Yibum - because she is either his Yevamah or his niece (with whom her Yavam
has already performed Chalitzah, and who is permitted to him).
(a) If the baby of a Kohenes becomes mixed-up with the baby of her Shifchah,
both of them are permitted to eat Terumah and when they go to the granary,
they receive one portion between them. They are not permitted to become
(b) They are prohibited from marrying a woman who is ...
1. ... Kasher - because of the one who is an Eved.
2. ... Pasul - because of the one who is a Kohen.
(a) Should they grow up and set each other free ...
1. ... they are permitted to marry (but only women whom Kohanim are
permitted to marry).
(b) They do not receive Malkos if they *did* become Tamei Meis or eat
Terumah be'Meizid - because each one is a Safek?
2. ... not permitted to become Tamei Meis.
3. ... not permitted to eat Terumah.
(c) They are not obligated to pay Keren ve'Chomesh if they ate Terumah
be'Shogeg - because each one can say that he is a Kohen (and we will apply
the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'R'ayah'.
(d) They do not receive Terumah under any circumstances. Their own Terumah -
they are permitted to sell to Kohanim.
1. 've'Einan Cholkin be'Kodshei ha'Mikdash' means - that they do not receive
a Bechor Beheimah or the skins of Kodshei Kodshim.
(b) Rashi objects to his first explanation, that 've'Ein Motzi'in es
she'Lahen mi'Yadam' refers to the concession of appointing whichever
Kohanim they wish, to bring their Korbanos on their behalf and who will
receive their flesh and skin - on the basis of the Gemara in ha'Gozel
(110a.) which teaches that whoever cannot perform the Avodah himself cannot
appoint a Sh'li'ach either.
2. 've'Ein Nosnin Lahen Kodshim' means - that one does not even give them a
piece of Bechor to eat or a skin as a gift.
3. ... 've'Ein Motzi'in es she'Lahen mi'Yadam' - that one does force them to
give their own Cherem or Bechor to a Kohen.
(c) They are also Patur from giving to a Kohen, the Zero'a, Lechayim and
Keivah of their Chulin animals. Their first-born animals - are set free in
the meadow to romp around until they obtain a blemish, when they become
permitted to a Zar, and may be Shechted outside the Beis Hamikdash.
(a) The Lashon of our Mishnah 'Meisu *ha'Kesheirim* ... ' cannot be
correct - because it assumes that the sons that became mixed-up are Pasul,
which is obviously untrue.
(b) So we amend it to 'Meisu ha'Vada'in'.
(a) In the case of the children of a Kohenes and her Shifchah who became
mixed-up, we amend the Lashon of our Mishnah from 'Nosnin Lahem Cheilek
*Echad*' to 'Nosnim Lahem Cheilek *ke'Echad*' - because it is unnecessary to
inform us that they receive one portion between them.
(b) What it means is - that the one cannot receive a portion of Terumah
without the other one being present.
(c) We learn from this Halachah - that 'Ein Cholkin Terumah le'Eved
Ela-im-Kein Rabo Imo'. This is because - the Tana holds 'Ma'alin mi'Terumah
le'Yuchsin' (so we can only distribute Terumah to someone who is Meyuchas).
(d) That is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah - Rebbi Yossi holds 'Cholkin
Terumah le'Eved Af-al-Pi she'Ein Rabo Imo'. Consequently, he must hold 'Ein
Ma'alin mi'Terumah le'Yuchsin'.
(a) On the sole occasion that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok testified, he
erred. He testified - that they distributed Terumah to an Eved without his
(b) His mistake was - that although what he saw took place in the location
of Rebbi Yossi (where they hold 'Ein Ma'alin mi'Terumah le'Yuchsin'), he
testified in the location of Rebbi Yehudah (where they hold 'Ma'alin ... ').
(c) We refute the initial text, where he said 've'*He'elu* le'Eved
li'Kehunah al Pi - on the basis of the principle 'Hashta Behemtan shel
Tzadikim (referring to the donkey of Rebbi Pinchas shel Yair, which refused
to eat un'Ma'asered crops) Ein Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu Meivi Takalah al Yadan,
Tzadikim Atzman Lo 'Kol she'Kein!'
(d) The new version reads - 'Bikshu le'Ha'alos Eved li'Kehunah al Pi'.
(a) The Tana lists ten people who do not receive a portion of Terumah in the
granary - though it *is* sent to their homes.
The tenth case, the one whose reason initially eluded us - is a Kohenes.
(b) There are two exceptions to this, inasmuch as they do not receive
Terumah at all; one of them, is a Kohen who is Tamei - the other, one who
married one of the P'sulei Kehunah. This is due to the K'nas (penalty) which
Chazal imposed on them for abusing the Kehunah.
(c) The reason for not giving Terumah to a Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan is -
because it is not respectful to give Terumah to people who do not posses
Da'as, which is similar to the reason for not giving a Tumtum and an
Androginus (because it is not respectful to give Kodshim [Terumah is called
'Kodshei ha'G'vul'] to a freak.
(d) We discussed above the reason for not giving a portion of Terumah to an
Eved in the granary. One may not give ...
1. ... an Areil and Tamei - because they are considered Ma'us (disgusting).
2. ... a Kohen who married a woman who is Pasul li'Kehunah - because Chazal