(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 110



(a) According to Rav, if a Ketanah does not make Miy'un but, after growing-up with her husband, she marries someone else, she does not require a get from the second husband - according to Shmuel, she does.

(b) According to Rav's interpretation of Raban Gamliel (that it is only after she becomes a Gedolah and performs Bi'ah, that the Kidushin of a Ketanah becomes established), this dispute must be speaking in a case when the first husband performed Bi'ah with her after she grew-up. The problem with this lies, not in Rav - but in Shmuel. How can Shmuel say that the second man requires a Get, in spite of the first husband having made Bi'ah with her after she grew-up?

(c) Shmuel's reason is - because when a man makes Bi'ah, he says, it is with the first Kidushin in mind (and not to create a new one).

(a) According to Rav (in K'suvos), if a man betroths a woman on condition that she did *not make any Nedarim*, and after marrying her S'tam (without any mention of the previous condition), he discovers that she *did*, she requires a Get - because when he performs Bi'ah after the Chupah, he forgoes all previous conditions and makes it in the form of a new Kidushin.

(b) According to Shmuel, she does not require a Get from him - because when he makes Bi'ah, it is having in mind the first Kidushin.

(c) Rav and Shmuel seem to argue over the same issue twice. Having taught us ...

1. ... *here* (by 'Ketanah she'Lo Mi'anah ... ') that the Bi'ah is considered a new Kidushin, Rav nevertheless found it necessary to repeat it *there* (in the case of 'T'nai') - because, since a condition was made and not met, we would have otherwise thought that Rav agrees with Shmuel in that case (the Kidushin should become nullified and no Get should be required).
2. ... *there* Kol ha'Bo'el al-Da'as Kidushin ha'Rishonim Hu Bo'el, Shmuel nevertheless found it necessary to repeat it *here* - because we would otherwise have thought that Shmuel's ruling is confined to the case there, where a condition was made and not met (as we just explained in Rav), but in our case, perhaps he would concede to Rav that the Bi'ah creates a new Kidushin.
(a) That Ketanah in Neresh who was betrothed to a man by her mother and brothers - and whose husband had already placed her under the Chupah (after she grew-up), when someone else came and abducted her Rav B'runa and Rav Chananel, disciples of Rav), ruled there - that she did not require a Get from the second man..

(b) 've'Osvei a'Bei Kursaya' means - that he placed her under the Chupah, which we assume to have taken place before the Bi'ah. In that case, the ruling of Rav's Talmidim, who seemed to consider the Chupah a fresh Kidushin even when there was no Bi'ah (like the first side of Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah in Raban Gamliel), whereas Rav himself requires specifically Bi'ah in order to become betrothed (and not just Chupah) as we saw earlier.

(c) Rav Papa reconciles this ruling of Rav B'runa and Rav Chananel, Rav's disciples, with Rav himself - by informing us that the Minhag in Neresh was to make Bi'ah before the Chupah. Consequently, when her husband placed his wife under the Chupah, he had already made Bi'ah with her, and that is why he acquired her.

(d) Rav Ashi explains their ruling even according to the regular Minhag for Chupah to precede Bi'ah. He ascribes their reason for their ruling - to the fact that the abductor behaved unconventionally, so, measure for measure, they issued him with an unconventional ruling.

(a) According to Rav Ashi's explanation, if the second man betrothed her with money, what Chazal did was to use their power of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' to nullify his Kidushin by declaring the money that he gave her Hefker. Ravina asked Rav Ashi how they could possibly have nullified his Kidushin if he betrothed her with Bi'ah, to which he replied - that they simply declared his Bi'ah an immoral act.

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah (who holds 'Melamdin ha'Ketanah la'Ma'ein ... ').

(a) If a man who is married to two Yesomos who are either both Ketanos or both Charashos, dies, the Bi'ah or Chalitzah of one of them exempts the other. If one of them is ...
1. ... a Ketanah and the other, a Chareshes - the Bi'ah of one of them does not exempt the other (the Sugya later will discuss what the Yavam is obligated to do).
2. ... a normal woman, and the other, a Chareshes, or if one of them is a Gedolah and the other, a Ketanah - the Bi'ah of the former exempts the latter, but not vice-versa.
(b) We learned above (in Perek Mitzvas Chalitzah) that the Chalitzah of a Cheresh and of a Chareshes is not valid. Rav Gidal Amar Rav therefore restricts any mention of Chareshes in our Mishnah to Bi'ah (but not to Chalitzah). According to Rabah however - our Mishnah (which permits Chalitzah by a Chareshes) speaks about a woman who was born a Chareshes, whereas the Mishnah in Mitzvas Chalitzah speaks about a woman who only became a Chareshes later.

(c) According to Rabah, the Chalitzah of a Chareshes who was ...

1. ... originally a Pikachas, is invalid - because she cannot read the Parshah.
2. ... born a Chareshes is valid - because in the same way as her husband originally married her with hints (seeing as she can neither speak nor hear), so too, does she leave the Yavamah's jurisdiction with hints.
(a) The Mishnah in Cheresh cites a case of two brothers, one, a Pikei'ach who is married to a Pikachas; the other, a Cheresh, who is married to a Chareshes. Should his brother die, and he does not wish to live with his Yevamah ...
1. ... the Pikei'ach will have to perform Yibum and then to give her a Get (since he cannot perform Chalitzah).
2. ... the Cheresh has no option but to perform Yibum with her and to retain her (seeing as he can neither perform Chalitzah nor may he divorce her(since he did not marry her [with signs]).
(b) According to Rabah - the Tana must be talking about a Cheresh who was born a Pikachas; otherwise, why should he not be permitted to perform Chalitzah?



(a) In a second case in the Mishnah in Cheresh, the Tana speaks about two Pikchim who are married to a Chareshes and a Pikachas. Here too, the Pikei'ach has no choice should his brother die. If he does not wish to live with his Yevamah, he has to perform Yibum with her and then give her a Get. Should the brother of the *Pikei'ach* who is married to the Chareshes, die, and *he* wants to perform either Yibum or Chalitzah - he may do so.

(b) We try to prove from the contention, just like the Yavam was a Pikei'ach from birth, so too, was the Yevamah (Chareshes) - that even a born Cheresh is forbidden to perform Chalitzah (a Kashya against Rabah).

(c) We refute this proof - by establishing the Chareshes as one who was previously a Pikachas (despite the fact that the Cheresh is a born Cheresh).

(a) The Tana says there in a case when two brothers (a Pikei'ach and a Cheresh) married two sisters (a Pikachas and a Chareshes), that if ...
1. ... the Cheresh married to the Chareshes, dies - his wife goes out because of Achos Ishto.
2. ... the Pikei'ach married to the Pikachas, dies - the Cheresh must divorce his wife (because of the Zikah of the Yevamah) and the Yevamah remains forbidden le'Shuk forever (because the Yavam can perform neither Yibum [seeing as the Yevamah is Achos Gerushaso] nor Chalitzah [since he is a Cheresh]).
(b) This Mishnah cannot be speaking about a man who became a Cheresh only after he was born - because then he would not have able to divorce his wife.

(c) We then go on to compare the sisters to the brothers, and the previous case (where the women were not sisters) to this case, to say that all the cases speak when they were born Charashim, leaving us with a Kashya on Rabah. We cannot ask on Rabah directly from the case of when the Pikei'ach married to the Pikachas dies, from the fact that the born Cheresh cannot perform Chalitzah - because anyway he would have been forbidden to perform Chalitzah with her, seeing as she had been married to a Pikei'ach, and the S'vara 'as she came in so she goes out' would not have applied.

(a) Despite the fact that a man can divorce his wife even against her will, he cannot divorce a wife who is a Shotah - because Chazal, in order to protect her, decreed that a Shotah cannot be divorced.

(b) This decree does not extend to a wife who became a Chareshes - because she is able to look after herself.

(a) Rav Yosef rejects the Kashya on Rabah from the comparison of the sisters to the brothers, and the previous case (where the women were not sisters) to the sisters, proving that they all speak when they were born Charashim - because, he says, one could answer that even though the case of the sisters speaks when they were born Charashos, the case of the Nochri'os speaks when they only became Charashos afterwards.

(b) He asks however, from an earlier section of that Mishnah. The Tana says there that ...

1. ... when two brothers Charashim married two sisters, irrespective of what the women were - they are Patur from Chalitzah and Yibum (because, seeing as their Zikos are equal [because they were both acquired through hints and are divorced through hints], each one is Achos Ishto, and is Patur from Chalitzah and from Yibum).
2. ... when two brothers Charashim married two Nochri'os, irrespective of what the women were - they perform Yibum, and should they not wish to live with them, they may divorce them.
(c) In the case of the sisters, the same will apply in the reverse case (if the sisters were both Charashos and the men were any combination of Pikei'ach and Cheresh) - each one is Achos Ishto, and is Patur from Chalitzah and from Yibum.

(d) From this Mishnah, Rav Yosef finally refutes Rabah's distinction between a born Cheresh and one who became a Cheresh (seeing as our Mishnah forbids them to perform Chalitzah, in spite of the fact that they were born Charashim). Rav Yosef knows that the Tana is speaking about men and women who were born Charashim - because otherwise, in the case of the Nochri'os, how would the Charashim be permitted to divorce their wives.

(a) Rav Nachman found Rav Ada bar Ahavah and Rav Chana his son-in-law gathering Talmidim in the public-square of Pumbedisa. 'ka'Makvu Akvasa' might also mean 'asking Kashyos'.

(b) They established our Mishnah (which rules that the Bi'ah of a Ketanah and a Chareshes do not exempt each other), speaks when their deceased husband was a Pikei'ach. The Tana's S'vara is - that we do not know which wife the deceased husband preferred (on principle): the Ketanah, because she is destined to become a Gedolah, or the Chareshes, because she is a Gedolah and ready for Bi'ah (to have children).

(c) If he was a Cheresh however, he would certainly prefer the Chareshes, because she is one of a kind with him, in which case, her Bi'ah would exempt that of the Ketanah.

(a) Rav Nachman disagrees with Rav Ada bar Ahavah and Rav Chana his son-in-law. In his opinion, our Tana (who rules that the Bi'ah of a Ketanah and a Chareshes do not exempt each other) even speaks when their deceased husband was a Cheresh.

(b) We ask what they would then have to do. They cannot both perform Chalitzah - because, as we have seen throughout the Sugya, a Cheresh and a Chareshes cannot perform Chalitzah.

(c) Neither can he perform Bi'ah with the Chareshes and Chalitzah with the Ketanah when she grows-up - because, seeing as the Bi'ah with the Chareshes is not completely Koneh (as we shall soon see), part of the Zikah still remains, and, when he later performs Chalitzah with the Tzarah, the Chareshes becomes forbidden because of 'Keivan she'Lo Banah ... '.

(d) Rav Chisda Amar Rav therefore rules that he should - perform Yibum with the Chareshes and give her a Get, and perform Chalitzah with the Ketanah when she grows-up.

(a) Rav Chisda extrapolates from Rav's ruling that, in his opinion, the Kinyan on a Chareshes is a partial one, whereas the Kinyan on a Ketanah is a Safek; either he acquires her completely or not at all. He could not possibly hold ...
1. ... that both are a partial Kinyan - because then, the Bi'ah of one would exempt the other; whereas the Tana says that it doesn't.
2. ... that both are a Safek - because then, if the Yavam made Bi'ah first with one of them and then with the other, he ought to be able to remain with the first one (because mi'Mah Nafshach: if one acquires them, then she is his Yevamah, and if not, his wife); whereas the Seifa of the Mishnah says that the Bi'ah of the second one renders the first one Pasul.
3. ... the other way round (that the Kinyan on a Chareshes is a Safek; whether he acquires her completely or not at all, whereas the Kinyan on a Ketanah is a partial one) - because if that were so, why is the Yavam obligated to divorce the Chareshes? If his brother acquired her, then she is his Yevamah (whom he acquired first), and if he did not acquire her, then she is not a Tzarah of the Chareshes but a stranger, in which case, there is no reason why he should not marry her.
(b) Despite the fact that the Ketanah is a Safek, he is not able to perform Yibum with her immediately (if she is a Yevamah, he acquires her now, and if she is not, he will acquire her when she grows-up) - because then, what will happen to the Chareshes, with whom he will be able to perform neither Yibum nor Chalitzah.

(c) The Tana of our Mishnah states that if he made Bi'ah, first with the Ketanah, then with the Chareshes, he invalidates the Ketanah. He really should be permitted to retain her (because, seeing as he made Yibum with her first, she is either his Yevamah, [in which case his Yibum acquired her], or a stranger [in which case she is now his wife]). Chazal however - issued a decree, in case he performs Yibum with the Chareshes first.

Next daf


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