(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 112

YEVAMOS 112 (PURIM!) - has been dedicated towards a Refu'ah Shelemah to Freyda Chana bas Esther, by the Tavin family.



(a) We already explained in the Mishnah that, if the Yevamah claims that the Yavam did not yet perform Yibum with her within thirty days , we force the Yavam to perform Chalitzah without the option of Yibum, because the Tana is speaking when she produces a Get from him. We assume initially - that the Tana is referring to a Get of divorce following his Bi'ah.

(b) In a Beraisa, the Tana rules that if within thirty days, the Yevamah claims that the Yavam did not perform Yibum with her, we force him to perform Chalitzah. If, after thirty days, *she* claims that he did ...

1. ... perform Yibum and *he* claims that he did not - she is believed and he gives her a Get, but not Chalitzah.
2. ... not perform Yibum and *he* claims that he did - he is believed, and she requires a Get plus Chalitzah, because of Shavyah Anafshah Chatichah de'Isura'.
(c) Even if he later changes his mind and agrees that he did not really perform Yibum, it will make no difference.

(d) It appears from the Seifa that the Tana is speaking when the Yavam has not yet given her a Get. In that case, based on what we just learned (that, within thirty days, if she does not yet have a Get, we give the Yavam the option of performing Yibum). In order to explain why the Tana says in the Reisha that we force him to perform Chalitzah - Rebbi Ami amends the Seifa to read 'Tz'richah Chalitzah *im Gitah*'.

(a) Rav Ashi leaves the Beraisa intact. To reconcile Rav with the Beraisa - he explains Rav's statement 'be'she'Gitah Yotzei mi'Tachas Yado' - to refer to a Get on his Ma'amar (forbidding him to perform Yibum [mi'de'Rabbanan] because of 'Keivan she'Lo Banah ... ').

(b) In view of this, he now explains 'Tzarich Get va'Chalitzah' in the Seifa of the Beraisa - to refer to a second Get (following his statement 'Ba'alti'), over and above the Get which she already has from the Ma'amar (explaining why, in the Reisha, we force him to perform Chalitzah and not Yibum).

(c) 'af-al-Pi she'Chozar ve'Amar Lo Ba'alti' - now comes to explain why she nevertheless requires a Get, whereas according to Rebbi Ami, it comes to explain why we do not force him.

(a) A Yavam and Yevamah came before Rava, both admitting that, although thirty days had passed, Yibum had not been performed. Rava instructed them to perform Chalitzah. It is essential to add that - initially he said that he had performed Yibum (like in the Seifa of the Beraisa that we just learned).

(b) Rav Sh'ravya objected to Rava's ruling - on the grounds that, the Tana of the Beraisa also requires a Get.

(c) Rava accepted Rav Sh'ravya's objection, and responded 'I Tanya, Tanya'.

(d) Hon, Rav Nachman's son, asked his father whether the Yevamah's Tzarah is permitted to marry after thirty days (seeing as we force the Yavam to perform Chalitzah). He replied - that the fact that we ask the Yavam to perform Chalitzah (because of 'Shavyah Anafshah ... ') will not affect the Tzarah. She is permitted to marry immediately after thirty days.

(a) The Mishnah in Nedarim states that initially, three women were entitled to demand a Get, and that they also received their Kesubah: 'Temei'ah Ani Lach'; 'ha'Shamayim Beini le'Veinach'; 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim'. The woman who says 'Temei'ah Ani Lach' - must have been married to a Kohen (whose wife is forbidden to him even if she was raped).


1. 'ha'Shamayim Beini le'Veinach' means - that she is accusing her husband of not having normal relations with her, and only Hashem knows it (see also Tosfos DH 'ha'Shamayim').
2. ... 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' - that she withdraws from having relations with anybody (because Tashmish is painful for her).
(c) When they saw, however, that women were abusing this Halachah, they changed it. They subsequently ruled that, if a woman says ...
1. ... 'Temei'ah Ani Lach' - nust prove it (by bringing two witnesses).
2. ... 'ha'Shamayim Beini le'Veinach' - we ask the husband in a nice way to behave civilly (see also Tosfos DH 'Ya'asu').
3. ... 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' - her husband should nullify the part of the Neder that pertains to him, and continue to live with her, whether she likes it or not.
(a) The B'nei Yeshivah asked whether 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' will be forbidden to the Yavam after her husband's death. The Yavam may be different than anybody else - because her Neder would only incorporate the majority of people to whom she would become permitted in the event of her husband's death. But it would not enter her mind that her husband might die leaving no children, and that she will fall to Yibum.

(b) Rav rules that the Yavam is not included in her Neder. According to Shmuel - it is.




(a) Abaye proves Rav's opinion (that the woman does not have the Yavam in mind when she says 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim') from our Mishnah 'ha'Noderes Hana'ah mi'Yevamah be'Chayei Ba'alah, Kofin Oso she'Yachlotz' - whereas, if she had in mind the fact that she might fall to Yibum (like Shmuel says), and that is what she was trying to circumvent, then the Din ought ot be 'Mevakshin' (we only ask him him to perform Chalitzah, but do not force him - as the Seifa explicitly states).

(b) We challenge Abaye's proof by establishing the Mishnah by a woman who has children - in which case, even Abaye will agree that a woman does not take into account that both her children and her husband will die.

(c) Based on the Seifa ('Im Niskavnah le'Kach, Afilu be'Chayei Ba'alah, Mevakshin Mimenu she'Yachlotz Lah'), we refute the challenge however - because then the Seifa should have gone to on speak about a woman who has no children (rather than the completely different case of 'Niskavnah'). This leaves us with a clear proof for Rav, that the Tana holds 'Yavam Eino ke'Ba'al'.

***** Hadran Alach Beis Shamai *****

***** Perek Cheresh *****


(a) The Tana states that if a Cheresh marries a Pikachas or vice-versa, he may either remain with her or divorce her, as he chooses. The statement that follows 'Kesheim she'Hu Koneis bi'R'mizah, Kach Hu Motzi bi'R'mizah' - is merely an explanation as to why he is permitted to divorce her.

(b) A Pikei'ach may divorce his wife who became a Chareshes, whereas a Pikei'ach who became a Cheresh may not divorce his wife - because a woman *does not require Da'as* to accept a Get (since a man may even divorce her against her will), whereas the man *does*.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri - fails to understand why a Pikachas who became a Chareshes can be divorced, whereas a Pikei'ach who became a Cheresh cannot divorce.

(d) The Rabbanan prove their point from Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda, who says that a Chareshes whose father married her off when she was a Ketanah (which is valid mi'd'Oraysa) - can receive her own Get when she grows up (which is exactly the same as a married woman who became a Chareshes.

(a) We infer from our Mishnah that the marriage of a Cheresh and of a Chareshes is valid (albeit mi'de'Rabbanan) whereas that of a Shoteh and of a Shotah is not - from the fact that the former require Chalitzah, and the latter do not.

(b) Rami bar Chama gave a good reason why the Rabbanan instituted marriage for the former but not for the latter - because whereas the former adhere to the words of the Rabbanan, the latter do not.

(c) The Rabbanan instituted marriage for a Cheresh and a Chareshes, because, otherwise, they will never be able to marry - whereas for a Katan, who will soon grow-up, they did not deem it necessary to do so.

(d) They nevertheless instituted marriage for a Ketanah, who, like a Katan, is destined to become a Gedolah - in order to protect her from abuse.

Next daf


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