ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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.
(c) Even if he later changes his mind and agrees that he did not really
perform Yibum, it will make no difference.
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
(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
(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
(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').
(c) When they saw, however, that women were abusing this Halachah, they
changed it. They subsequently ruled that, if a woman says ...
2. ... 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' - that she withdraws from having
relations with anybody (because Tashmish is painful for her).
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).
***** Hadran Alach Beis Shamai *****
(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
***** 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
(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.