Previous daf

1)

(a) A man was told that his wife died, so he married her paternal sister; she too, died, and he married her maternal sister; when she died, he married her paternal sister, and after being informed that she too, had died, he married her maternal sister. If it is then discovered that his wife is still alive - he is permitted to retain *her*, the third and the fifth wives (seeing as they are not related to each other.

(b) The Bi'ah with the second and fourth sisters does not forbid him on the third and the fifth sister respectively - because (since they are related to the first and the third wives respectively) they are not considered married, and the close relative of a woman whom one raped but did not marry does not become forbidden.

(c) When the Tana says 'u'Potros Tzaroseihen' - he means that, should the husband then die, and the Yavam performs Yibum with any of these three wives, that Yibum will exempt all of his wives from Yibum.

(d) If he made Bi'ah with the second woman after the death of his wife - then it is the second and the fourth women who are permitted whilst the third and fifth are forbidden.

(a) The Bi'ah of a Katan is considered Bi'ah as regards Yibum - from the age of nine.

(b) He is not Koneh the Yevamah completely - only to the extent that Ma'amar is Koneh by a grown-up.

(c) According to the Tana's words, the difference between the Bi'ah of a Katan vis-a-vis the brothers and the Bi'ah of the brothers vis-a-vis him is - that whereas the Bi'ah of the brothers prevent him from acquiring the Yevamah even if he performed Bi'ah first, his Bi'ah only prevents the brothers from acquiring the Yevamah if he performed it first, but not if it took place after them.

4)

(a) We reconcile the statement 'Ela Hu Posel Techilah, ve'Hein Poslin Techilah ve'Sof' with the Beraisa of Rav Z'vid bar Oshaya, which states that the Bi'ah of a nine-year old *does* invalidate the Yevamah on the older brother who made Ma'amar before him - by establishing our Mishnah, not by Bi'ah (as we thought at first), but by Ma'amar.

(b) Our Mishnah does indeed follow its statement with the example of the latter brother performing Bi'ah - however, we amend this text by adding the phrase 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, be'Ma'amar, Aval be'Bi'ah Posel'.

(c) The Beraisa says that the Katan only invalidates the Yevamah in *one* way, with Bi'ah - because it is only through Bi'ah that the Katan invalidates the Yevamah both at the beginning and at the end.

(d) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa says - that a Katan invalidates the Yevamah with a Get and with Ma'amar.

(a) Rebbi Meir also says in a Beraisa - that the Get of a ben Tesha invalidates the Yevamah on the brothers. The Tana Kama of another Beraisa says 'Asu Bi'as ben Tesha ke'Ma'amar be'Gadol'. Rebbi Meir adds 'Asu Chalitzas ben Tesha ke'Get be'Gadol'.

(b) He did not say that they made his Chalitzah like his own Get - because his Get is only partially effective (to invalidate the Yevamah on the brothers, because of 'Keivan she'Lo Banah Shuv Lo Yivneh').

(c) The Get of a Katan is less effective than that of a Gadol according to ...

1. ... Raban Gamliel, who holds 'Ein Get Achar Get' - inasmuch as that ruling only applies to a Gadol after a Gadol or a Katan after a Katan, but as far as the Get of a Gadol after that of a Katan is concerned, even he will agree that 'Yesh Get Achar Get'.
2. ... the Rabbanan, who hold 'Yesh Get Achar Get' - inasmuch as that it only applies to a Gadol after a Gadol or a Katan after a Katan, but as far as the Get of a Katan after that of a Gadol is concerned, 'Ein Get Achar Get', even according to them.

6)

(a) If, according to the Tana Kama, two nine-year old brothers both perform Bi'ah with the Yevamah one after the other - the second one invalidates the Yevamah (even) on the first one, because, since the Bi'ah of the first one is not completely Koneh, the second one's Bi'ah is Koneh too. Consequently, she requires a Get from the second one, and becomes Pasul on both of them (because of 'Keivan she'Lo Banah, Shuv Lo Yivneh').

(b) If a ben Tesha performs Bi'ah first with one of the Yevamos and then with her Tzarah, both Yevamos become forbidden to him - because, seeing as (due to the fact that he is not Koneh the first one completely), he is Koneh the second one too, the principle 'Bayis Echad Hu Boneh, ve'Eino Boneh Sh'nei Batim' will apply.

(c) According to Rebbi Shimon ...

1. ... (in the Reisha), the Bi'ah of the second Katan does not forbid the Yevamah on the first one - due to a combination of two reasons: 1. because in his opinion, the Bi'ah of a ben Tesha is not *partially* Koneh, but *Safek* Koneh; 2. because of the ruling 'Ein Bi'ah Achar Bi'ah. Consequently, if the Bi'ah of the first brother *is* Koneh, the second one is not; whereas, in the event that the first one's Bi'ah is not be Koneh, then the Bi'ah of the second one is not Koneh either.
2. ... (in the Seifa), the Bi'ah of the ben Tesha with the second Yevamah does not forbid the first one on him - for exactly the same reason (if his Bi'ah with the first Yevamah is Koneh, then his Bi'ah with the second one is ineffective ... ). It goes without saying that, in both instances, the second one remains forbidden (in case the first Bi'ah was Koneh).

(d) The author of our Mishnah, which holds 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar, regarding both two Yevamin with one Yevamah and two Yevamos with one Yavam, cannot be ben Azai - who concedes that there is no Ma'amar after Ma'amar by one Yevamah with two Yevamos, but who holds that there *is* Ma'amar after Ma'amar by two Yevamin and one Yevamah (even if they are both Gedolim - because the Rabbanan instituted Ma'amar for one of the brothers only, but that Ma'amar pertains to both Yevamos).

(a) If a ben Tesha performed Yibum with his Yevamah and died, leaving other brothers - one of them is obligated to perform Chalitzah (not Yibum, because part of the Zikah from the first brother still remains, in which case, the principle of 'Mi she'Alehah Zikas Yavam Echad, ve'Lo ... Zikas Sh'nei Yevamin' will apply.

(b) Despite the fact that the Bi'ah of a ben Tesha acquires his Yevamah (like Ma'amar), nevertheless, if he married a woman and died, she is Patur from Yibum - because it is only in the realm of Yibum, where there is already a Zikah, that Chazal validated the Bi'ah of a Katan. In matters of Kidushin, the Torah-law (that a Katan is not able to acquire) prevails.

(c) If, after performing Yibum with the Yevamah, the ben Tesha grows up, marries a second wife and dies ...

1. ... the first woman - requires Chalitzah (because of 'Zikas Sh'nei Yevamin', as we just explained).
2. ... regarding the second woman - either Chalitzah or Yibum, according to the Yavam's whim.

(d) This only applies however, if the ben Tesha *did not perform Bi'ah* with the first woman from the time that he became a Gadol. If he *did*, then this case adopts the Din of two Yevamos falling to Yibum from one house.

(a) Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Tana Kama in the previous case. He permits Yibum with either of the two (even if he did not perform Bi'ah with the first woman from the time that he became a Gadol) - because he does not agree with the D'rashah 'Mi she'Alehah Zikas Yavam Echad, ve'Lo ... Zikas Sh'nei Yevamin'

(b) According to him, the second wife nevertheless requires Chalitzah - because min ha'Torah, they are not Tzaros (seeing as the Bi'ah of a Katan is not Koneh).

(c) But not Yibum - because, since the Rabbanan instituted Ma'amar, he acquires her (mi'de'Rabbanan) and it resembles 'Sh'nei Yevamin mi'Bayis Echad'.

(d) The Tana equates the Din of a ben Tesha and of a ben Esrim - regarding the performing of Bi'ah with a Yevamah (in all of the areas dealt with in the last two Mishnas).

(a) Rava extrapolates from our Mishnah (which requires the brother of a ben Tesha who performed Yibum and died, to make Chalitzah and not Yibum, even though she is the only wife) - that 'Zikas Yavam Echad ve'Lo Zikas Sh'nei Yevamin' is d'Oraysa (and applies even when there is only *one* Yevamah - or even if it is mi'de'Rabbanan. See Tosfos 32a. DH 'mi'de'Rabbanan'), and is not just a decree in case people will say that when there are two Yevamos who fall from one house, both require Yibum (in which case it might only apply when there are *two* Yevamos involved - like the case in Perek Arba'ah Achin [cited in 10b.]).

(b) The Din of our Mishnah, which invalidates the Kidushin of a Katan, is repeated in a Beraisa - where the Tana lists a Shoteh together with a Katan.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah permits the Tzarah to make Yibum in spite of the Bi'ah of the ben Tesha with her Tzarah (before he became a Gadol) - from which Rav extrapolates that 'Lo Asu Bi'as ben Tesha ke'Ma'amar be'Gadol'.

(b) Our Mishnah (which permits Yibum with the Tzarah), clashes with the Mishnah in Arba'ah Achin - which states that if three brothers married three non-related women, one of them died and the second one made Ma'amar and died, both women require Chalitzah from the third brother, but not Yibum.

(c) To begin with, Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan, who both hold 'Asu Bi'as ben Tesha ke'Ma'amar be'Gadol', explain that neither Tana differentiates between a Gadol and a ben Tesha, but the Tana there happens to be talking about a Gadol, and the Tana here, about a Katan. The Mishnah in Arba'ah Achin, they explain, forbids the Ba'alas Ma'amar only because of the Tzarah (as the Gemara explains there - even when there is no Tzarah [since they decree because of when there is]). *Our* Tana on the other hand, forbids the Ba'alas Ma'amar to the brothers, not because of the Tzarah, but because of 'Eishes Sh'nei Meisim' (i.e. 'Zikas Sh'nei Yevamin').

(a) Rebbi Yochanan was angry with Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) - because he explained the two Mishnas in the manner that we just explained them, but without saying it in his name.

(b) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi cited him an incident where a Sefer-Torah was torn in the Shul in Teverya, as a result of anger - when Rebbi Elazar (ben Shamua, the Tana) and Rebbi Yossi were engaged in a dispute about whether a bolt (that is not fitted to the door) which has a thick head (rendering it fit to be used for crushing garlic) is considered a K'li to use to lock a door or not. Rebbi Yossi ben Kisma commented - that he would be surprised if they would not subsequently serve idolatry in that Shul (see Agados Maharsha).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan's reaction at their attempt to pacify him - was to become even more angry (because they were comparing his relationship with Rebbi Elazar to that of Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yossi, two colleagues; whereas in reality, he was Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das' Rebbe).

(d) Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi quoted the Pasuk "Ka'asher Tzivah Hashem es Moshe Avdo Kein Tzivah Moshe es Yehoshua ... " - because it is obvious that Yehoshua did not state after each and every Halachah that he taught, that he had learned it from Moshe. What the Pasuk must therefore mean is that that is something that is so obvious, that it does not need to be said. So too, everyone knew that whatever Rebbi Elazar said, he learned from Rebbi Yochanan.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan's reaction to Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi's words - was to ask Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi, in admiration, why they did not know how to pacify like Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi.

(b) The source of Rebbi Yochanan's anger lay in the Pasuk in Tehilim "Agurah ve'Ohalcha *Olamim*" - a prayer to Hashem to let his Divrei Torah be repeated in this world (after his death), so that his lips would move in the grave as if he was alive.

(c) And the crux of that Derashah lies in the statement of Rebbi Yochanan himself quoting Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai - who said that whenever one quotes a deceased Talmid-Chacham, that Talmid-Chacham's lips move in the grave.

(d) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Ze'iri or Shimon Nezira connects this with the Pasuk "ve'Chikech ke'Yein ha'Tov ... Dovev Sifsei Yesheinim" - which compares the lips of the deceased Talmid-Chacham to the wine bubbling in the vat.