(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 31

YEVAMOS 31 - has been dedicated towards a Refu'ah Shelemah to Yakov ben Chana, by the Tavin family.


(a) We just learned that even if we forbid the Tzarah of the Safek Mekudeshes in our Mishnah to perform Yibum, we do not need to worry that people will think that she must have been Mekudeshes since she still requires Chalitzah.
Why do we not then require a Safek Megureshes (by 'Safek Karov Lo Safek Karov Lah') to perform Chalitzah as well, (and insert that case in our Mishnah)?

(b) Then why are we not worried by Safek Kidushin too, that once they are permitted to do Chalitzah, they may go ahead and perform Yibum?

2) The Mishnah in Almanah le'Kohen Gadol rules that if a house falls on a person and on his wife who is also the daughter of his brother, and it is not known which one of them died first, the Yavam must perform Chalitzah with his daughter's Tzarah, despite the fact that she had a Chezkas Heter le'Shuk. *One* of the reasons that we do not decree there (forbidding Chalitzah - that once Chalitzah is permitted, they may go ahead and perform Yibum) is because the case is uncommon.
What is the *other*?


(a) The Mishnah in Gitin rules that, if someone threw a Get to his wife in the street and it landed in between them, she is Safek Megureshes.
Besides the Din of Yibum (should the husband die) what other ramifications might this ruling have (if he does not)?

(b) Why are we not afraid there too (a classical case of Geirushin) that they might go on to perform Yibum? How do Rabah and Rav Yosef establish that Mishnah, and how do they establish ours?

(c) Why do we think that *two* pairs of witnesses is better than *one*?

(a) We establish our Mishnah by one pair of witnesses because that must be the case by Kidushin.
Why do we think that? Why can it not speak by *two* pairs?

(b) On what grounds do we refute the original contention that two pairs of witnesses comprise a Safek d'Oraysa (preventing us from applying the Chezkas Eishes Ish)?

(c) What happened with Bar Shatya and what did Rav Ashi rule there?

Answers to questions



(a) On the basis of the Kashya that we just asked, Abaye re-learns the corollary between Kidushin and Geirushin in our Mishnah.
How does he explain the cases of Kidushin and Geirushin? What does he mean when he quotes the Pasuk in Iyov "Yagid Alav Rei'o"?

(b) Rava disagrees with him, because the Mishnah said 'Zehu'.
According to him, why does the Tana say 'Zehu' ...

  1. ... by Kidushin? What does the Tana come to exclude?
  2. ... by Geirushin?
6) Some say that Chazal did not institute the date on Kidushin, because of 'fruit'.
What does this mean? Why did they not institute the date by Kidushin, too?


(a) What is the second reason for instituting the date on a Get?

(b) In that case, why did they not institute the date on documents of Kidushin?

(c) They nevertheless instituted the date on the documents of sale of slaves (despite the fact that there too, the sale of slaves is sometimes effected through money).
What is the purpose of instituting the date by the sale of slaves?

(d) Considering that there too, sometimes the sale of slaves took effect through documents and sometimes, through payment of money, why did they institute the date on the documents of sale of slaves?

(a) Another reason that they did not institute the date on Kidushin, is because to do so would create the problem of where to place it.
Why could one not place it ...
  1. ... with woman?
  2. ... with him?
  3. ... with the witnesses?
(b) Who keeps the Get?

(c) Why are we not worried there too (like with Kidushin) that she may erase the date on the document.

(a) If three brothers are married to three non-related women, one of the brothers dies and one of them makes Ma'amar and dies, according to the Tana Kama, the two Yevamos require Chalitzah, and not Yibum.

(b) Rebbi Shimon says that the Yavam may even perform Yibum with either of the two Yevamos, and Chalitzah with the other.
Why is that?

(c) And why does the second Yevamah require Chalitzah, according to him?

(a) Why can the prohibition of two Zikos (according to the Tana Kama) not be d'Oraysa?

(b) What *is* the Din d'Oraysa?

(c) Why did the Rabbanan issue this decree?

(d) Why did they not institute that the Yavam makes Yibum with one of them and Chalitzah with the other?

(a) In which case are we worried that people might say that every time two Yevamos fall to Yibum from one house, one of them requires Yibum and one Chalitzah, and which case does this not bother us?

(b) If, before he died, the Yavam (in our Mishnah) gave a Get for the Ma'amar that he made, Rava rules that his brother is permitted to make Yibum with the Tzarah of the Ba'alas Ma'amar.
Why not with the Ba'alas Ma'amar herself?

(c) Why can the reason for this not be because of 'Keivan she'Lo Banah, Shuv Lo Yivneh' (which would render her Pasul on all the brothers)?

(d) How do others quote Rava? Under what condition does Rava say this?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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