(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 28

YEVAMOS 28 (19 Teves) - dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav Yisrael Avraham Abba ben Harav Chaim Binyamin Ze'ev Krieger ZT"L, author of Yad Yisrael (on Rambam) and many other Sefarim. Sponsored by his son, Reb Chananel Benayahu Krieger Krieger (Yerushalayim).


(a) We just learned that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, our Mishnah, which requires both brothers to perform Chalitzah with the two sisters who fell to Yibum, must be a mistake (because one of the brothers would later permitted to make Yibum with the first sister that fell). Why does he decline to explain that it is ...
1. ... a decree in case he first makes Chalitzah with the *first* Yevamah, and Yibum with the second?
2. ... because really the Tana holds 'Ein Zikah', and he decreed in all cases of two sisters who fall to two brothers, whenever one of them requires Chalitzah and the other, Yibum, that one must make Chalitzah with both, in case one comes to perform Yibum first, and the other brother dies, causing the Mitzvah of Yibum to become negated?
(b) And why does he not answer that the Tana of our Mishnah is ...
1. ... Rebbi Elazar, whom we know holds that any Yevamah who was forbidden even for one hour, remains forbidden forever?
2. ... Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who maintains that two twin events can occur simultaneously, and our Mishnah speaks when both brothers died (and both sisters fell to Yibum) at the same time, in which case neither of them was permitted when they fell?
(c) Maybe our Mishnah speaks when they simply don't know which sister fell first, and that explains why neither Yavam may perform Yibum?
2) We learned in our Mishnah that if one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers with an Isur Ervah (Chamoso, say), then he is permitted to perform Yibum with the second one; whereas the second brother is forbidden to make Yibum with either sister. Why must the Tana be speaking when the sister who is not his mother-in-law fell to Yibum first?


(a) Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa maintains (like he does in our Mishnah) that it is Beis Hillel who hold 'Im Kansu Yotzi'u'; Beis Shamai hold 'Yekaymu'. Aba Shaul reverses the opinions. Rebbi Shimon holds 'Im Kansu, Yekaymu'. Why does he make a statement at all, since it seems as if he holds either like Beis Shamai (according to Rebbi Eliezer) or like Beis Hillel (according to Aba Shaul)?

(b) We already learned above in a Mishnah in Perek Keitzad that, when two sisters fall to *one* Yavam, 'Achosah ke'she'Hi Yevimtah, O Choletzes O Misyabemes'.
Why does the Tana see fit to repeat it ...

  1. ... here in our Mishnah?
  2. ... there, having learned it here?
(c) We also learned there 'Isur Mitzvah ve'Isur Kedushah Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes'.
Why does the Tana see fit to repeat it here?

(d) But how can we even have thought that he may perform with her, seeing as min ha'Torah, an Isur Mitzvah falls to Yibum. Is it not obvious that when she is also Achos Zekukaso, the Yavam will be forbidden to perform Yibum with her?

Answers to questions


4) The Tana has already taught us in the Reisha that if one of the Yevamos is an Ervah to the Yavam, then he is permitted to perform Yibum with her Tzarah.
Having taught this ...

1. ... there, why does the Tana need to inform us that the same will apply in the Seifa (when two sisters fall to *two* brothers each of whom is an Ervah to one of the brothers?
2. ... in the Seifa), why does he need to repeat it in the Reisha (when there is only *one*)?
(a) What does the Tana mean when he writes '*ve'Zu Hi she'Amru*, Achosah ke'she'Hi Yevimtah O Choletzes O Misyabemes'?

(b) Why does the Tana need to repeat this in the case when each of the sisters is also an Isur Mitzvah on one of the two Yevamin, having already taught it to us when one of them is?

(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa, ha'Asurah la'Zeh Muteres la'Zeh ... ' applies to all of the fifteen Arayos listed at the beginning of the Masechta. Rav Yehudah himself disagrees. In his opinion, it only applies to the cases from Chamoso and onwards.
Why will it not apply to the first six cases connected with 'Bito'?

(b) Abaye agrees with the first opinion, because since the case is possible, who cares whether it is through marriage or through rape? He does not however, agree that Rebbi Chiya's principle applies by Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo.
Why not?

(c) What will be the case according to Rebbi Shimon?

(d) Why is it necessary, when spelling out the case, to mention that Yehudah, the fourth brother, performed Yibum, since the Yevamah would be permitted to Zevulun, the fifth brother, even if he had not done so?

7) And how would we find the case of 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh, Muteres la'Zeh' by the Tzaras Tzarah as well?


(a) According to the Tana Kama, if two of three brothers married two sisters, a woman and her daughter or a woman and her granddaughter, and died, the third brother must make Chalitzah and not Yibum.
What does Rebbi Shimon say? What is his reason?

(b) What will the Din be, if one of the two sisters is ...

  1. ... an Ervah to him?
  2. ... an Isur Mitzvah or an Isur Kedushah?
(c) We have already learned above that if one of the two sisters is an Ervah on one of the brothers he is permitted to make Yibum on the second sister. The Tana mentions it because of Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Shimon say? Why is this a Chidush?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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