REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 56
YEVAMOS 46-60 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) According to Rav, a Yevamah acquires his Yevamah completely with any of
the inferior Bi'os mentioned in our Mishnah; according to Shmuel, he only
acquires her regarding the two points mentioned in the Parshah.
(b) One of the three ramifications of 'le'Potrah min ha'Yibum' is that
should the Yavam die having had children from another wife, she is Muteres
What are the other two?
(c) In which third regard does he acquire her according to Rav?
(d) Why (according to the first Lashon), does even Shmuel agree that he
acquires her completely if she fell to Yibum after they were married?
(a) Having established the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel by a Yevamah who
fell to Yibum after *betrothal*, Rav holds that the Torah includes Bi'as
Shogeg like Meizid.
What is Shmuel's reasoning?
(b) What will Shmuel say in a case where the Yavam performed a proper Bi'ah?
(c) Shmuel's previous statement conforms with another statement made by Rav
Nachman in his name.
What did he say?
(a) According to the Tana of the Beraisa, if a bas Yisrael was betrothed to
a Kohen, is she permitted to eat Terumah (after the marriage) if ...
(b) According to what we just said, Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel will have a
problem with this Beraisa the way it stands.
- ... he became a Cheresh before the marriage?
- ... if he married her, and then died, and she fell to a Yavam who was also a Cheresh? Why is that?
How does he amend it?
(c) And how will he now explain the final words of the Beraisa 'be'Zu Yafeh
Ko'ach ha'Yavam mi'Ko'ach ha'Ba'al'?
(a) In the second Lashon, Rav and Shmuel both agree that if she fell to
Yibum from the betrothal, she is not permitted to eat Terumah.
then their Machlokes?
(b) How do we now amend the statement of Rav Nachman quoting Shmuel, who
said that whenever the husband fed his wife, the Yavam may feed his Yevamah?
(c) Rav will explain the Beraisa (which permits a bas Yisrael who fell from
a Kohen who had become a Cheresh before they were married, and who then fell
to his brother who was a Cheresh, to eat Terumah), like Shmuel explained it
in the first Lashon.
How will Shmuel now explain it?
(a) When (under which circumstances) is a bas Yisrael married to a Kohen who
became a Cheresh before the marriage, permitted to eat Terumah?
We answer that the Tana only mentions 'the son' to teach us that when there
is a son, the Rabbanan concede that she is permitted to eat. Why can we then
not explain that Rebbi Nasan really argues with the Rabbanan even in the
Reisha (in the case when there is no son), only he waited until the Rabbanan
had finished both of their statements before arguing with them?
(b) According to the Chachamim, if her son dies, she may no longer eat
Terumah. How does Abaye refute Rabah, who explains that Rebbi Nasan permits
her to eat because, since she has already eaten, she may continue to do so?
(c) Why indeed, do we not apply the Sevara of 'Ho'il she'K'var Achlah'?
(d) And on what grounds does Abaye refute Rav Yosef, who explains Rebbi
Nasan's reason to be because intrinsically, the marriage of a Kohen Cheresh
feeds his wife Terumah, and Chazal did not decree on the marriage of a
Cheresh on account of betrothal (which does not)?
Answers to questions
(a) What did Rav Sheishes teach Rav Amram about the wife of a Yisrael who
(b) How did he understand the Seifa of our Mishnah, which says that the same
applies to someone who has relations with one of the Arayos? What did he
think 'the same applies' referred to?
(c) We try to refute his proof by explaining that 've'Chein ... ' refers to
Ha'ara'ah or to unnatural relations with any of the Arayos.
Why can that
not possibly be correct?
(d) To what else might 've'Chein ... ' refer, negating Rav Sheishes' proof?
(a) How do we amend Rabah's statement: 'Eishes Kohen she'Ne'ensah, Ba'alah
Lokeh Alehah Mishum Zonah'?
What does Rabah say, according to the second Lashon?
(b) From where do we know that an Eishes Yisrael who was raped is permitted
to her husband?
(c) What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from there with regard to an
(d) How does Rabah answer Rebbi Zeira, who asks from the Beraisa, where it
appears that an Eishes Kohen who was raped is no more than a 'La'av ha'Ba
mi'K'lal Asei' (which is only an Asei) and not the La'av of Tum'ah?
(a) According to the Tana Kama (Rebbi Meir), the moment a Kohen Gadol
betroths a bas Kohen who is a widow, or a Kohen Hedyot, a divorcee, they
(the women) are forbidden to eat Terumah.
What do Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi
Shimon say? What is their reason?
(b) Assuming that this Machlokes extends to a bas Yisrael (who is permitted
to eat Terumah when she becomes betrothed to a Kohen, according to the
Mishnah Rishonah in Kesubos), why do/es ...
(c) Why do Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon concede that, once they marry, she
- ... Rebbi Meir forbid them to eat Terumah?
- ... Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon not forbid them to do so?
(d) Should either of them divorce her or die after they are married, the bas
Kohen remains forbidden to eat Terumah, and the bas Yisrael, to marry a
What will Rebbi Meir hold in a case where they died after the
betrothal (but before the marriage)?
(a) Rebbi Meir learns the prohibition of the above women to eat Terumah (or
to marry a Kohen) even after Eirusin from a 'Kal va'Chomer'.
(b) On what grounds do Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon reject Rebbi Meir's
(a) What does Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya maintain regarding, whether or
not, a Kohen who is a P'tzu'a Daka (whose Beitzim are crushed) may feed the
bas Yisrael whom he betrothed, Terumah?
Answers to questions
(b) On what grounds do we refute this explanation?
(c) Why can we not answer that here too, he is able to feed a bas Geirim?