ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 98
YEVAMOS 98 (30 Adar!) - dedicated by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel of Raanana,
Israel. May all the members of his family be blessed with Simcha and
fulfillment, throughout their lives!
(a) The most logical reason for saying 'Ein Av le'Mitzri' (which actually
incorporates all Nochrim) is - because due to the fact that the Nochri women
are very adulterous, we never really know who the fathers of their children
(b) Rava proves from the Beraisa on the previous Amud that this is not the
case - because in the Seifa, the Tana exempts twins who were conceived
before the Geirus and born afterwards from Chalitzah and Yibum (even though
twins are created from the same Tipah and are therefore quite obviously
conceived from the same father). The real reason for 'Ein Av le'Mitzri'
therefore is - because the Torah declared their Zera Hefker, like that of
horses (as we learned above in our Mishnah).
(c) We can know for sure who the Nochri's father is - if he was alone in
prison together with his mother.
(d) Rava brings his proof from the Seifa of the Beraisa (when they were born
*after* their parents converted), and not from the Reisha (when they were
born *before* - from the fact that they are not Chayav because of Eishes
Ach) - because there, the reason is because of 'Ger she'Nisgayer, ke'Katan
she'Nolad Dami' (a principle which is not currently under discussion).
(a) Rebbi Yossi related the story of Niftayem the convert who married his
maternal brother's wife. The Chachamim there ruled 'Ein Ishus le'Ger'. This
cannot have been what they really said - because that would imply that the
Kidushin of a Ger is not effective (which is inconceivable).
(b) What they actually said was 'Ein Isur Eishes Ach le'Ger'.
(c) We establish the relationship between Niftayem's brother and his wife -
when they were married before he converted (but did not live together after
(d) The Beraisa needs to tell us this - because, we might otherwise have
thought that Chazal decreed when they were married before they converted on
account of when they were married afterwards (when it is a case of Eishes
(a) A certain convert told ben Yosi'an the same thing in the name of Rebbi
Akiva (as Rebbi Yossi said in the previous question). That case involves -
(b) He also cited a second ruling of Rebbi Akiva, where he inferred from the
Pasuk "Vayehi D'var Hashem el Yonah *Sheinis* Leimor" - that Hashem only
spoke to Yonah twice, but not a third time.
(c) The problem that we have with the timing of the convert's testimony
is - that (as we learned above on Daf 77a.), any new ruling of a
Talmid-Chacham is acceptable only as long as he issues it before it becomes
practically applicable, but not afterwards, as appears to have been the case
(d) We give three answers to this question. The second answer is that in
giving testimony, he cited a ruling from the past, which renders the ruling
acceptable under all circumstances.
1. The first answer is - that the convert Talmid-Chacham did not quote Rebbi
Akiva for the first time at that moment. In fact, he had already cited it
2. The third answer - that since he issued a second ruling together with
this one, since he is believed regarding that ruling, he is believed on this
(a) In his second ruling, Rebbi Akiva stated that Yonah prophesied twice,
but not three times. Ravina reconciles this with the Pasuk (concerning
Yerav'am ben Yeho'ash) "Hu Heishiv es G'vul Yisrael ... Ka'asher Diber
Hashem be'Yad Avdo Yonah ben Amitai" (which appears to be a third
prophecy) - by restricting Rebbi Akiva's statement to prophesies concerning
Ninvei (but that does not rule out additional prophesies concerning other
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains the latter Pasuk allegorically. What
the Pasuk means is - that just as the evil prophesy at the hand of Yonah was
overturned from bad to good, so too, will Yisrael in times of Yerav'am ben
Yeho'ash experience a change from good to bad.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa, explaining the Din of a Ger who was conceived
she'Lo bi'Kedushah but born bi'Kedushah, elaborates on the statement 'Yesh
Lo She'er ha'Eim ve'Ein Lo She'er ha'Av'. If he marries ...
1. ... his maternal sister, he says - he must divorce her.
(b) 'Achos ha'Av min ha'Eim, Yotzi, min ha'Av Yekayem. The reason for the
stringent ruling in the former case is - because of a decree on account of
Achoso mei'Imo (see also Tosfos DH 'Achos', and Mosaf Rashi throughout the
2. ... his paternal sister - he may retain her.
(c) In the case of Achos ha'Eim min ha'Av ...
1. ... Rebbi Meir says 'Yotzi' - because there is one aspect of Eim.
2. ... the Chachamim say 'Yekayem' - because a paternal relationship is not
similar to a maternal one.
(a) The Tana permits Eishes Achiv and Eishes Achi Aviv (even min ha'Eim) -
because Chazal confined their decree (forbidding relations from before the
conversion on account of after it) to blood-relationships, but did not
extend it to relationships that result through marriage.
(b) 'u'Mutar be'Sha'ar Kol ha'Arayos' - comes to include his father's wife.
(c) We establish the Tana's ruling 'u'Mutar be'Eishes Achiv' - to pertain to
the wife to whom his brother was married before he converted (as we
(a) If someone married a woman and her daughter when he was still a Nochri
and then he converted - he is obligated to divorce one of them.
(b) When the Tana continues 'Lechatchilah Lo Yichnos' he is referring (not
to the previous case, because, if he is obligated to divorce one of them,
then it goes without saying that he is not permitted to marry her
Lechatchilah, but) to the earlier cases in the Beraisa (those that comprise
She'er ha'Av) where the Tana ruled 'Yekayem'.
(c) The Tana also cited a dispute whether he is permitted to marry his
mother-in-law. This is connected with the dispute between Rebbi Yishmael and
Rebbi Akiva (discussed above on Daf 94b.) - where Rebbi Yishmael declared
someone who married his mother-in-law after his wife's death Chayav
S'reifah, whereas Rebbi Akiva exempted him from S'reifah.
(d) The Tana who forbade a convert to marry his mother-in-law holds like
Rebbi Yishmael, who is strict by Chamoso (as we just explained); whereas the
Tana who permits it holds like Rebbi Akiva, who is lenient (see Tosfos DH
(a) The case of 'Chameish Nashim she'Nis'arvu V'ladoseihen' is - when the
babies of five women become mixed-up, and each of them has another son whose
identity is known.
(b) If the five sons who got mixed-up all died - four of the other sons make
Chalitzah with one of the five Yevamos, and the fifth son may then perform
Yibum. Then he, plus three of the four brothers make Chalitzah with the
second Yevamah, and the remaining one may perform Yibum ... , and so on,
until each of the brothers has performed Yibum with one of the Yevamos.
(c) It is imperative for the four brothers to make Chalitzah before the
fifth brother performs Yibum - to ensure that when the brother performs
Yibum, he does not contravene the La'av of Yevamah le'Shuk.
(d) It is preferable to follow the instructions of the Mishnah than for one
brother to acquire all five Yevamos with Yibum after the other four have
made Chalitzah - because in this way, it is just possible that each brother
will perform the Mitzvah of Yibum with his Yevamah.
(a) The Tana in a Beraisa writes that if some of those who are not mixed-up
are brothers and some of them are not, then those who are should perform
Chalitzah and those who are not, Yibum. Rav Safra interprets this to mean -
that if some of them are paternal brothers and some of them, maternal
brothers, then the maternal brothers should perform Chalitzah, and the
paternal ones, Yibum.
(b) In the event that some of them are Kohanim and the rest ...
1. ... Yisre'eilim - then the Kohanim should perform Chalitzah, and the
2. ... maternal brothers - both perform Chalitzah and not Yibum.