ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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. We cannot require Chalitzah by a Safek Megureshes (by
'Safek Karov Lo Safek Karov Lah') and insert it in our Mishnah - because
once we permit Chalitzah, we are afraid that they will perform Yibum
(transgressing a Chiyuv Kareis).
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. We do not decree there (forbidding Chalitzah - that once Chalitzah
is permitted, they may go ahead and perform Yibum), either because the case
is uncommon - or because the Ervah herself, who is still alive, will serve
as a reminder that Yibum is forbidden.
(b) We are not worried that by Safek Kidushin too, maybe they will go ahead
and perform Yibum - because so what if they do? The prohibition of Yibum
there is no more than a Chumra (because of the Chezkas Heter le'Yavam).
(a) The Mishnah in Gitin rules that, if someone threw a Get to his wife in
the street and it landed exactly in the middle, four Amos from one and four
Amos from the other, she is Safek Megureshes. Besides the Din of Yibum
(should the husband die) - this also means that, if he is a Kohen, he cannot
take her back.
(b) We are not afraid that there too (a classical case of Geirushin), they
might go on to perform Yibum - because Rabah and Rav Yosef both established
that case when there are two pairs of witnesses (and not just one, as has
been the case until now).
(c) We think that *two* pairs of witnesses is better than *one* - because,
whereas one pair of witnesses creates a Safek de'Rabbanan, allowing us to
place the Safek on a Chezkas Eishes Ish, two pairs does not (since there is
one pair of witnesses testifying that the Get was closer to her and that she
(a) We establish our Mishnah by one pair of witnesses because that must be
the case by Kidushin. This we know - because if there were *two* (seeing as
we currently assume that when there are two pairs of witnesses, it is a
Safek d'Oraysa, and she is a Safek Mekudeshes), how can we possibly have
said earlier, that we are not afraid that the Tzarah of the Safek Mekudeshes
may perform Yibum, because she anyway has a Chezkas Heter le'Yavam, and so
what if she does?
(b) We refute the original contention that two pairs of witnesses comprise a
Safek d'Oraysa (preventing us from applying the Chezkas Eishes Ish) - on the
grounds that there is no reason to differentiate between *two* contradicting
pairs of witnesses and *one*. Either way, we will ignore the witnesses and
apply the prevalent Chazakah.
(c) Bar Shatya was an epileptic who once sold a field. Some witnesses
testified that he sold it at a time when he was sane, others, when he was
not. Rav Ashi ruled that we ignore the witnesses and place the field in the
Chazakah of bar Shatya.
(a) On the basis of the Kashya that we just asked, Abaye re-learns the
corollary between Kidushin and Geirushin in our Mishnah. According to him,
Safek Geirushin in our Mishnah refers to 'Safek Karov Lei, Safek Karov Lah,
just like Safek Kidushin; and in the same way, Safek Kidushin refers to a
Safek in the documentation of the Kidushin, just like Safek Geirushin.
Some say that Chazal did not institute the date on Kidushin, because of
'fruit' - meaning that the reason that they instituted it by Gitin (to
determine from which date the woman is permitted to demand payment for the
fruit that her husband continues to eat from her fields) does not apply to
Kidushin (since a man who betroths a woman is not permitted to eat the fruit
of his wife's fields until the marriage anyway, so what would she be
(b) Rava disagrees with him, because the Mishnah writes 'Zehu'. According
to him, the Tana says 'Zehu' ...
1. ... by Kidushin - to exclude the case of a Sh'tar (document) that does
contain the date, which is not Pasul by Kidushin.
2. ... by Geirushin - because he said 'Zehu' by Kidushin (because in fact,
the Safek by Geirushin does include the case of 'Safek Karov Lei, Safek
(a) The second reason for instituting the date on a Get is - because we are
afraid that, if Gitin would not be dated, the husband of a woman whose wife
committed adultery might cover up for his wife (to protect the family name,
should she be his sister's daughter, for example), by giving her a Get and
saying that the Get preceded the adultery.
(b) The reason that they did not institute the date on documents of Kidushin
is - because some people become betrothed through money and not by means of
(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). The purpose of instituting the date by the sale of slaves
is - to establish the date from when the purchaser of a slave may begin to
eat the fruits of his slave's property.
(d) Despite the fact that there too, sometimes the sale of slaves took
effect through money, they instituted the date on the documents of sale of
slaves - because, the majority of sales of slaves were effected through a
Sh'tar (which was not the case by Kidushin).
(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 he woman - because should she then commit adultery, she would
erase it and say that the act took place prior to the Kidushin (negating the
gain of inserting the date in the first place).
(b) The Get remains with the woman.
2. ... with him - for the same reason (as we explained above - in 7a.,
should he be married to his wife's sister).
3. ... with the witnesses - because, if they remember when the Kidushin took
place, then the document is not necessary anyway, and if they don't, they
might check the date with the document, and the Torah writes in Ki Seitzei
"mi'Pihem", 'from their mouths and not from their notes'.
(c) We are not worried there too (like with Kidushin) that she may erase the
date on the document - because (whereas by Kidushin, hiding or erasing the
date will save her from punishment, doing so on a Get can only be to her
detriment (seeing as she needs the dated document to prove that she was
divorced prior to the act, otherwise she will be pronounced guilty).
(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 - because the Torah
writes "u'Meis Achad Meihem, Yevamah Yavo Alehah", from which we deduce that
the Yavam may only perform Yibum with a Yevamah who has the Zikah of one
woman on her and not the Zikah of two.
(b) Rebbi Shimon says that the Yavam may perform Yibum with either of the
two Yevamos, and Chalitzah with the other - because, in his opinion, either
Ma'amar is Koneh completely (in which case she was the wife of the second
brother), or it is not (and she was the wife of the first one). No matter
which, one of the two women is permitted to him for Yibum.
(c) The second Yevamah require Chalitzah - in case Ma'amar is *not* Koneh.
(a) The prohibition of two Zikos (according to the Tana Kama) cannot be
d'Oraysa - because if it were, why would the Yevamah require Chalitzah.
(b) mi'd'Oraysa - Ma'amar is not Koneh at all. Consequently, the Yevamah in
question and the wife of the brother who performed Ma'amar, would have the
Din of two Yevamos who fell from two houses, both of whom will require
either Chalitzah or Yibum.
(c) The Rabbanan issue this decree (forbidding Yibum) - in case people will
be led to think that whenever two Yevamos fall to Yibum from one house, they
both require Yibum.
(d) They did not institute that the Yavam makes Yibum with one of them and
Chalitzah with the other - because this too, might lead people to believe
that whenever two Yevamos fall to Yibum from one house, one of them requires
Yibum, and the other, Chalitzah.
(a) We are worried that people might say that every time two Yevamos fall to
Yibum from one house, one of them requires Yibum and one Chalitzah - there
where the Yavam performed Chalitzah first (and the Torah has written "Asher
Lo Yivneh", forbidding Yibum with any of the Yevamos after Chalitzah. There
would however, be no problem if he were to perform Yibum first (though
nevertheless, they forbade this case, too).
(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 - but not with the Ba'alas
Ma'amar herself, in case one confuses her with a Yevamah to whom her Yavam
gave a Get (for the *Zikah* - which forbids her mi'de'Rabbanan to perform
(c) The reason for this cannot be because of 'Keivan she'Lo Banah, Shuv Lo
Yivneh' (which would render her Pasul on *all* the brothers) - because he
only gave her a Get to remove the Ma'amar, and not to remove the Zikah.
(d) According to others - what Rava said was that if the Yavam gave her a
Get for her Ma'amar, he is even permitted to perform Yibum with her
(provided he specifically said so), because all he did was to remove the
Ma'amar that he had made, leaving the Zikah intact.