(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 14

YEVAMOS 14 (5 Teves) - has been dedicated to the memory of Max (Meir Menachem) Turkel, on his Yahrzeit by his children Eddie and Lawrence, and his wife Jean Turkel/Rafalowicz.


(a) Rebbi Yochanan (who holds that Beis Shamai actually *practiced* their opinion, with regard to Tzaras Ervah) concurs with Shmuel.
With whom does Resh Lakish (in whose opinion they did *not*) concur?

(b) If this Machlokes occurred before the Bas Kol was heard, what is the reason of Resh Lakish and Rav? Why should they *not* have practiced their opinion?

(c) Then what is the reason of Rebbi Yochanan and Shmuel, who say that they *did*?

(d) If, on the other hand, it occurred after the Bas Kol, we can better understand Resh Lakish and Rav.
But what is then the reason of Rebbi Yochanan and Shmuel? Why should Beis Shamai have practiced their opinion, in spite of the Bas Kol?

(a) On what grounds does Rava rejects Abaye's contention that there is no problem of "Lo Sisgodedu", according to Rebbi Yochanan, because this is a case of two Batei Dinim in two towns?

(b) So how does Rava resolve the problem?

(c) In Rebbi Eliezer's town they would cut wood to produce charcoal to make a knife for performing the B'ris Milah on Shabbos.
What is Rebbi Eliezer's reason?

(d) In Rebbi Akiva's town this was not done, because Rebbi Akiva holds 'Kol Melachah she'Efshar La'asosah me'Erev Shabbos, Ein Docheh es ha'Shabbos.' Considering that Rebbi Akiva lived in a different town than Rebbi Eliezer (or was at least on a different Beis-Din), on what basis did we ask from the K'lal of "Lo Sisgodedu", which we just established does not apply to two Batei-Din in one town, and certainly not in two towns?

(a) Why did Rebbi Avahu move a lamp that had burned that Shabbos after it went out, in Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's territory, but not in that of Rebbi Yochanan?

(b) Why was he not concerned that his Shamash might not realize the difference, and move a lamp in Rebbi Yochanan's territory?

(c) We learn from a Beraisa that neither did Beis Shamai refrain from marrying Beis Hillel's daughters nor vice-versa.
Even assuming that Beis Shamai practiced their opinion, why is there no problem with ...

  1. ... Beis Shamai marrying Beis Hillel's daughters?
  2. ... Beis Hillel marrying the daughters of Beis Shamai, considering the possibility of marrying a Mamzeres (according to the Gemara's final outcome)?
(d) Why might Beis Shamai's daughters be Mamzeiros according to Beis Hillel?
4) We refute the suggestion that Beis Hillel hold 'Ein Mamzer Me'Chayvei K'riysus' on the basis of Rebbi Elazar's statement.
What does Rebbi Elazar say?


(a) We prove that they must have informed each other, from the Seifa of the Mishnah, where they did not refrain from lending one another their household vessels.
Why is the proof only valid from the case of Beis Hillel borrowing Beis Shamai's vessels, and not vice-versa?

(b) Why is it preferable to bring a proof that they informed each other from the case of borrowing each other's vessels, rather than from that of Tzaras Ervah?

Answers to questions



(a) We quoted Rebbi Elazar, who says that even though Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over Tzaras Ervah, they agree that 'Ein Mamzer Ela mi'Mi she'Isur Ervah ve'Anush Kareis'.
Why can he not be referring to ...
  1. ... Beis Shamai, who concedes to Beis Hillel, according to our initial contention?
  2. ... Beis Hillel, who concedes to Beis Shamai?
(b) We conclude that he is referring to Beis Shamai who concedes to Beis Hillel.
What then, is the Chidush?
(a) The Beraisa cites various Machlokos of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai that concern the current issue under discussion: Tzaros, Achyos, Get Yashan, Safek Eishes Ish, ha'Megaresh es Ishto ve'Lanah Imo be'Pundeki.
What is the case of ...
  1. ... Safek Eishes Ish (according to Rashi's first explanation)?
  2. ... ha'Megaresh es Ishto ve'Lanah Imo be'Pundeki?
(b) What is the basis of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai, who maintain that she does *not* require a second Get, and Beis Hillel, who say that she *does*?
(a) The final case concerns the amount that is required for Kidushin.
What is the minimum amount according to ...
  1. ... Beis Shamai?
  2. ... Beis Hillel?
(b) What does the Beraisa learn (that we did not see in our Mishnah) from the fact that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel would marry women from each other's camp - in spite of the Machlokes by Tzaros (see Tosfos DH 'Ela')?

(c) With which Pasuk in Zecharyah does this conform?

(a) Rebbi Shimon says 'Nimne'u min ha'Vaday ve'Lo Nimne'u min ha'Safek'. How do we initially interpret 'Safek'? To which of the above cases does it refer?

(b) We prove from the fact that they refrained from cases of Vaday according to Rebbi Shimon) that they must have practiced their respective opinions. What problem do we nevertheless have with the fact that Beis Shamai refrained from the Vaday of Beis Hillel?

(c) How do we resolve this problem? From what did Beis Shamai refrain?

(d) Then why did they not refrain from the case of Safek, too, which is no less forbidden? How do we amend 'Safek'? What is the Beraisa then coming to teach us?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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