Resources for Yevamos daf 85

1.      The גמרא discusses whether a woman who was a שניה to the בעל but not the יבם is entitled to get a כתובה from the יבם. The ריטב"א and many other ראשונים ask ממה נפשך: if the יבם didn’t do the מצוה of יבום yet, then why would you think she should get a כתובה from him? If he did perform the מצוה of יבום and was כונס her and wants to stay married to her, then why shouldn’t she get a כתובה? She needs one like any other woman as it says in כתובות that אסור לאדם לשהות עם אשתו שעה אחת בלא כתובה! He answers that we must be discussing a case where the יבם married her but wants to divorce her immediately, so the issue of שהייה עם אשתו doesn’t apply. The חזון אי"ש in אבן העזר סימן קכ"ה אות ב asks that if we are treating thisיבמה  like a regular woman then even if he doesn’t want to stay married to her we should create a כתובה for her as a תנאי ב"ד like all other women? He answers that there is a split—when it comes to the תנאי ב"ד , that is based on the marriage itself which in this case is rooted in an אסור  marriage (meaning the יבם  is really just a continuation of his brothers marriage which was באיסור since she was a שניה to him).However, when it comes to the concept of אסור לאדם לשהות עם אשתו שעה אחת בלא כתובה, that is a דין  in the גברא  (meaning the husband himself) so if he wants to stay married to her he would need a כתובה . Interestingly, theרמב"ם  in הלכות יבום פּרק ב׳ הל׳ י"ז seems to say that we don’t give this woman a כתובה under any circumstances, even if the יבם wants to stay married to her. Why isn’t he concerned with the other ראשונים‘s issue of אסור לאדם לשהות עם אשתו שעה אחת בלא כתובה? The ב"ח in אה"ע סימן קס"ח ד"ה ומיהו gives two explanations: one is that the חכמים were primarily concerned with שלא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה. That concern is only relevant if it was his decision to marry her. However, by a יבם it is a קנין שהקנו לו מן השמים so we it won’t be קלה בעיניו להוציאה anyway. Alternatively, similar to the חזון אי"ש, since this marriage is just a continuation of the previous marriage which was באיסור, we aren’t concerned if it’s קלה בעינו להוציאה. The אור שמח on that רמב"ם  answers that even the רמב"ם  agrees she gets תוספת כתובה and that is enough to make it not קל בעיניו להוציאה.

2.      The גמרא says in one לשון that רבי needed the explanation of מרגילתו אצלה because a חלוצה is only an איסור דרבנן. רש"י here explains that when the גמרא in קידושין (and earlier in יבמות on דף כ"ד) makes the דרשה of the extra ויו in ואשה to include a חלוצה it is just an אסמכתא בעלמא. The question many ask is that רש"י in מכות דף י"ג in the משנה there says that חלוצה is a דין דאורייתא and brings the exact same דרשה from קידושין! The ערוך לנר has the following answer based on the ריטב"א  and  רשב"א: the ריטב"א asks what does the other לשון of the גמרא that says מרגילתה אצלו was just for ר׳ שמעון בן אלעזר answer forרבי  as to why a חלוצה  gets a כתובה ? He answers that this לשון must hold that even though the דרשה of חלוצה is only an אסמכתא, חלוצה is still something connected to a דין דאורייתא (of גרושה) so it doesn’t need חיזוק like a דין דאורייתא. The ערוך לנר suggests that רש"י may hold that this לשון holds חלוצה is a real דאורייתא, in which case what he wrote in מכות was going like the first לשון of our גמרא. There is a fascinating רע"ב on our משנה who says that חליצה is only דאורייתא by a כהן גדול and not by a כהן הדיוט. The תוספות יו"ט says he doesn’t know what the source of the רע"ב is.