Resources for Yevamos daf 111

1.     The גמרא says that the קידושין of a קטנה is “קנויה ואינה קנויה” which means her קידושין are a ספק. Why would the חכמים institute a קידושין that was a ספק? The מאירי explains that the issue is her possibility to do מיאון. In other words, since מיאון uproots the marriage retroactively, the קידושין is always a ספק. The ברכת אברהם asks that according to this, why would two יבמות קטנות be able to be פּוטר each other when one does יבום? It’s still a ספק if they will do מיאון! The ים של שלמה disagrees with this approach and says that when the קטנה is married it is a full marriage. The ספק marriage is only once her husband dies. He explains that חז"ל didn’t create the marriage so that the child should be an עגונה, so the marriage at that point becomes a ספק even if she hasn’t done מיאון. Reb Moshe ז"ל in אגרות משה in חלק א סימן קס"ח ענף ה says a third approach: that the קידושין is only a ספק vis a vis the co-wife, but regrading herself it is a full קנין.

2.     There is an interesting בית שמואל in אבן העזר סימן מ"ד ס"ק א who says that if someone is מקדש a חרשת and then someone else is מקדש her after that, the קידושין of the second is תופס as well. The אבני נזר in אבן העזר סימן ר‌ל"ו ס"ק ז explains that the בית שמואל must understand that when our גמרא says that the קידושין of a חרשת is "משוירת", it means that she is half not מקודשת so the קידושין of the second man can be חל on the part of the woman that isn’t מקודשת. He explains that this is really a מחלוקת between רש"י and the ריטב"א. When רש"י describes the קטנה he says it’s a ספק whether the קטנה is fully מקודשת herself or not at all, which means the חרשת is  only half מקודשת. However, when the ריטב"א describes the חרשת he says it has a כח קנין שאינו גמור which sounds like she is fully married but just with a non-full קנין. Therefore, he suggests that the בית שמואל would work with רש"י who says the lady herself is only half מקודשת as opposed to the ריטב"א who says she is fully married but with a low level קנין.

3.     The משנה says that if a יבמה claims that her יבם wasn’t מיבם her within thirty days, we only ask him to give her חליצה but don’t force it. תוספות in ד"ה לאחר asks why would he mind giving her חליצה? He answers that it’s embarrassing to him for her to spit at him. The נימוקי יוסף says that the reason we only ask him is because he can say that even though he gave her a גט, he can always change his mind and take her back. However, if he gives her חליצה then we won’t let him take her back. So it is not in his best interest. רבי עקיבא איגר asks that he couldn’t take her back anyway because according to her, he gave her a גט before יבום. In that case she has an איסור דרבנן of doing יבום at any point after that. If so, based on her words she has been שויה אנפשא חתיכה דאיסורא! He answers that the נימוקי יוסף must hold that there is no דין of שויה אנפשא חתיכה דאיסורא by an איסור דרבנן. This a מחלוקת הפּוסקים elsewhere.