BACKGROUND ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Yevamos 52
YEVAMOS 46-55 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) [line 16] MAKAS MARDUS
Beis Din has the power to inflict lashes upon a person when lashes
mid'Oraisa cannot be instituted. These lashes are called Makas Mardus (lit.
lashes for rebelliousness) and may be unlimited in number. (See Insights to
Chulin 110:1 for a discussion of the various opinions regarding how Makas
Mardus is administered.)
2) [line 17] MANGID - gives lashes
3) [line 18] SHUKA - marketplace, street
4) [line 18] SHIDUCHEI - preliminary negotiations before betrothal
5) [line 19] D'MEVATEL GITA (GET: BITUL HA'GET)
(a) According to the Torah, a man who sends a Get (bill of divorce) to his
wife with a messenger can revoke it before it reaches the hands of his wife
by declaring in front of a Beis Din (i.e. two or three men -- Gitin 32b),
"The Get that I have sent is hereby nullified." (MISHNAH Gitin 32a)
(b) The repeal of the Get takes effect even if it is not done in the
presence of the woman or the messenger. However, the Chachamim forbade
revoking the Get unless it is done in the presence of the messenger or the
wife. According to some Amora'im, they feared that if the husband would
revoke the Get without the knowledge of the messenger and the wife, his wife
may marry another man, relying on the Get, without realizing that the Get
was revoked before it was handed to her. In order to prevent this
unfortunate situation, the Chachamim decreed that a man may not revoke a Get
after sending it to his wife with a messenger unless he (or a second
messenger of his) does so in their presence. Other Amora'im maintain that
the decree was enacted because men regularly used to cancel Gitin after they
dispatched them in order to distress their wives. The Chachamim therefore
ruled that the husband (or a second messenger of his) must revoke the Get in
the presence of the original messenger or the wife. The husband will not go
to such lengths and pursue the original messenger to revoke the Get, just to
distress his wife (ibid. 33a and RASHI)
(c) If the husband *does* revoke the Get while not in the presence of the
first messenger or the wife (b'Di'eved), the Tana'im argue as to whether his
action has any validity (ibid.). The Halachah follows the opinion that the
repeal takes effect. However, since with the repeal the husband has
transgressed a Rabbinical enactment, he receive Makas Mardus (see above,
entry #1) for his action.
6) [line 19] MASAR MODA'A
Moda'a is a legal declaration, made in front of witnesses, that a sale or
Get that a person is about to enact is going to be made under duress, and
should not take legal effect.
7) [line 20] D'PAKIR SHELICHAH D'RABANAN - who acts brazenly towards an
agent of Beis Din
8) [line 21] SHAMTA (Niduy - Excommunication)
(a) The minimum period of Niduy is thirty days in Eretz Yisrael or seven
days in Bavel and elsewhere. If the Menudeh does not repent from his ways he
is put into Niduy for a second thirty-day period. If he still does not
repent, he is then put into Cherem. The laws of Cherem are much more
(b) No one may come within four Amos of the Menudeh, except for his wife and
family. He is not permitted to eat or drink with other people, nor is he
included in a Zimun or any other Mitzvah that requires a quorum of ten men.
He may not wash his clothes, shave or take a haircut or wear shoes. Learning
and teaching Torah, however, are permitted, as well as engaging in work. The
last two are not permitted to a Muchram, who must learn by himself and
engage in work to the minimum extent that will provide him daily sustenance.
People may speak with the Menudeh or the Muchram unless Beis Din
specifically prohibits it.
(c) Even if the time of the Cherem or Niduy has finished, a person remains
in Niduy or Cherem until he is permitted by three commoners or by an expert
sage (SHULCHAN ARUCH 334:27 and REMA 334:24)
9) [line 22] CHASANA D'DA'IR B'VEI CHAMOHI - a son-in-law who lives in his
10) [line 23] CHALIF A'BAVA - who passes by the door [of his mother-in-law's
11) [line 25] MEIDAM HAVAH DAYIM ME'CHAMASEI - she was suspected of having
an affair with her son-in-law
12) [line 48] LAVLAR - a scribe
13) [line 3] D'AGIDA BEI - she is Zekukah to him
14) [line 6] MA'AMAR ILAVEI ZIKAH KA RAMI - Ma'amar is appended to the
16) [line 14] EIN KIDUSHIN TOFSIN B'CHAYAVEI LAVIN
(a) There are women whom the Torah prohibits to certain men, however, if
these men transgress a Torah prohibition and are Mekadesh (betroth) them the
Kidushin are valid. Other women are prohibited to the extent that even if
the men are Mekadesh them, the Kidushin are not valid.
(b) The Tana'im argue, based upon differing interpretations of the verses of
the Torah (Kidushin 67b-68a), with which women Kidushin are valid and with
which women Kidushin are not valid.
1. According to most of the Tana'im, Kidushin are valid with women who are
prohibited only with a Lav and/or an Aseh. Kidushin are not valid with women
who are prohibited with an Isur Kares (such as the Arayos that the Torah
prohibits in Parshas Acharei Mos, Vayikra 18:6-23).
(c) Another result of the above-mentioned argument applies to Mamzerim.
According to the opinion that rules that only Kidushin with Chayavei Kares
are not valid, the children of Chayavei Lavim are not Mamzerim. According to
Rebbi Akiva and those Tana'im who rule that Kidushin with Chayavei Lavim are
not valid either, the children of Chayavei Lavim are also Mamzerim (see
"Mamzer," in the Background to 46:8).
2. Rebbi Akiva and other Tana'im are more stringent, ruling that Kidushin
are not valid even with those women who are prohibited with an Isur Lav. The
Tana'im argue further with regard to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, as to
whether Kidushin are not valid only with some of the Chayavei Lavin (those
women who were never permitted to the man in question), or with all of them.
Additionally, one Tana claims that according to Rebbi Akiva, Kidushin are
not valid with Isurei Aseh either (see "Mamzer," Background to 46:8).
(d) According to all opinions, Kidushin may not be effected with a
non-Jewish maidservant or a Nochris, even though the prohibition against
marrying them is not a Isur Kares, since the institution of Kidushin does
not exist with regard to these women (see Insights to Yevamos 45:1).
17) [line 24] ASMACHTA
(a) At times, when Chazal make a Derashah (extrapolate a Halachah or other
teaching) from a word in the Torah, it happens that the Halachah or teaching
is not mid'Oraisa at all, but rather mid'Rabanan. When this happens, the
Gemara usually states that the Halachah is mid'Rabanan, and "Kera Asmachta
b'Alma," i.e. that the verse is only cited as a "support" for the Halachah
mid'Rabanan, but its source is not actually from the Torah. (TOSFOS to Bava
Basra 66b DH Michlal d'She'ivah writes that in many instances, Derashos of
Chazal in the Midreshei Halachah, such as Toras Kohanim, which appear to be
from the Torah, are only Asmachta'os.)
(b) A second type of Asmachta applies even to a Halachah which actually is
mid'Oraisa. When Chazal find a hint in the Torah to a Halachah which has its
basis in the Oral Tradition, they call this an Asmachta as well (Eruvin 5a,
(c) The Rishonim argue as to the reason why Chazal, in these instances, used
verses to support their teachings.
1. From the words of the RAMBAM (Introduction to his Perush ha'Mishnayos) it
appears that Asmachta'os are only mnemonic devices. (It is possible that he
writes this only with regard to the latter type of Asmachta, Asmachta'os for
(d) There are those who write that a Halachah mid'Rabanan that is learned
from an Asmachta, and which has a hint in the apparent meaning of the
verses, is more stringent than an Isur mid'Rabanan for which an Asmachta
from the Torah is not offered. These Halachos were given the status of
Halachos of the Torah in certain respects, for example. with regard to the
requirement to be stringent in the case of a Safek (PRI MEGADIM,
Introduction to Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 1:2:d)
2. MAHARIL (in Likutei Maharil) writes that Chazal used the device of
Asmachta in order to make people regard certain Halachos mid'Rabanan as if
they were actually mid'Oraisa, so that they should not treat them lightly.
3. The RITVA (to Rosh Hashanah 16a, see Be'er ha'Golah of the MAHARAL, Be'er
1) states that when Chazal present an Asmachta, it means that the Torah
meant to suggest that it is fitting to implement such a Halachah, but that
it did not choose to make it obligatory. The Torah empowered the Chachamim
to enact it should they see the need for it arise. Similarly, the SHELAH (in
Torah she'Be'al Peh, entry titled "Rabanan") writes that when the Chachamim
utilized a hint from a verse, it means that they learned a particular
approach of reasoning from this verse. Accordingly, it appeared to them that
there was a need to decree this particular Halachah.
4. The MESHECH CHOCHMAH (Parshas Shoftim) claims that when Chazal present an
Asmachta, it means that *after* Chazal instituted a particular Halachah or
enacted a particular decree, they studied the Torah and found that the Torah
had already hinted to that future decree in its eternal wisdom.
18) [line 36] ODER - one who hoes
19) [line 36] NICHSEI HA'GER
(a) When a Jew dies, his closest relatives inherit his estate (according to
the hierarchy established by the Torah as recorded in Bamidbar 27:8-11).
Since all of the Jews are related to each other (at least through Yakov
Avinu and his sons), every Jew must have at least one heir. A convert,
however, may have no heirs (since his non-Jewish relatives do not inherit
his estate). When a convert dies without heirs, his estate becomes Hefker
(ownerless). The first person who takes possession of his belongings becomes
(b) In order to take possession of the estate of a convert who dies without
any heirs, one must make a Ma'aseh Kinyan (a formal Halachically-binding act
of possession), as in all cases of taking possession of items that are
Hefker. The forms of Ma'aseh Kinyan that may be used are: for Metaltelin
(movable goods) - 1. Hagbahah, i.e. lifting an item; 2. Meshichah (lit.
pulling), i.e. causing an item to move; 3. Chatzer, i.e. bringing the item
into one's domain; for Mekarka'in (real estate) - Chazakah, i.e. performing
an act that is normally performed by an owner.
(c) Examples of Chazakah are Na'al (locking), Gadar (fencing in) and Paratz
(making a breach in a fence to create an entrance) or any act that is done
to *enhance* the land, such as digging to improve a field and the like
(MISHNAH Bava Basra 42a).