Resources for Yevamos daf 10
1. תוספות in ד"ה לעולם asks why our משנה didn’t list the ערוה of אשת איש? This could occur if someone divorced a lady on condition that she not marry ראובן and then that lady marries ראובן’s brother שמעון and then שמעון dies she and falls to ראובן for יבום. תוספות answers that this lady cannot פּטור her צרה since she is different than an אחות אשה since she is not yet an אשת איש until after the יבום. Moreover, even if you did יבום it will just come out that she was never divorced in the first place in which case there was never a דין יבום so her צרה was not במקום מצוה. Consequently, this type of ערוה cannot פּטור a צרה. However, regarding the יבמה herself, תוספות does not seem to entertain the possibility that she would need to do חליצה herself. The רמב"ן at the beginning of the מסכתא discusses this question as well and is also נוטה that she should not need חליצה since she can’t do יבום מדאורייתא andכל שאינו עולה ליבום אינו עולה לחליצה. However, the רשב"א argues that this lady requires חליצה since there is no real ערוה present right now and it’s only after the fact that the ערוה would come. According to all three ראשונים one could ask the following question: even if we don’t view the אשת איש as an active ערוה to פּטור a צרה, why wouldn’t the אשת אח never leave since there is no מצות יבום and the אשת אח itself should פּטור the צרה? The קובץ הערות in סימן ה׳ אות ט׳ asks this question and answers that the אשת אח leaving is not תלוי on whether in practice she will be מתיבמת. Rather, it is תלוי in whether יבום should apply here. In our case, יבום should apply and it’s just a side issue in the future that will stop it. Based on this he is מחדש that if after she falls to יבום the original husband gives her a full divorce, she is then re-obligated to do יבום since she was never really נאסרה to the יבם at any point.
2. The גמרא discusses the מחלוקת between רבי יוחנןand ר"ל about the status of a woman and her צרה after חליצה was done. The גמרא seems clear that according to both opinions, the woman who got חליצה is אסורה to all the brothers with at least a לאו of אשר לא יבנה. The גמרא says this explicitly in ר"ל and also calls it חייבי לאווין when talking on behalf of רבי יוחנן in the next גמרא. It is therefore not surprising that the רמב"ן counts this in the ששכחת הלאווין לאו המצוה י"ד as one of the לא תעשהs that the רמב"ם should have counted. What is surprising is that the רמב"ם inהלכות יבום וחליצה פּרק א׳ הל׳ י"ב says that אשר לא יבנה is only an איסור דרבנן! Also, the פּרי השדה (from רב יצחק פּרג שליט"א ) in סימן ח׳ asks that the רמב"ם explains there that the reason there is no resurgent אשת אח following חליצה is because the אשת אח left when she fell to יבום and never comes back. Why doesn’t the רמב"ם say what ר׳ יוחנן said about שליחות? He answers that ר׳ יוחנן holds like אבא שאול (which he proves from other גמרות) and according to אבא שאול the אשת אח doesn’t leave until יבום is performed (which is why אבא שאול says יבום can only be done לשמה or else it is פּוגע באשת אח). According to אבא שאול, you need use the פּסוק of אשר לא יבנה to knock down the אשת אח from a כרת to a לאו, and you need שליחות to remove אשת אח from the other brothers. However, according to the חכמים (which the רמב"ם paskens like) the אשת אחgoes away immediately at שעת נפילה in which case you don’t need to use the פּסוק of אשר לא יבנה to tell me it went down from a כרת to a לאו since it is already completely gone. Rather, the פּסוק is used for another דרשה (בית אחד הוא בונה) and there is therefore only an איסור דרבנן. This also explains why the רמב"ם didn’t quote שליחות since according to the חכמים the אשת אח isn’t there anyway and שליחות isn’t needed.
3. As to the נקודת המחלוקת between ר"ל and ר"י, the אתוון דאורייתא in סימן ח׳ in the קו"א suggests that it is based on ברירה. ר"ל holds ברירה works so once one brother does יבום it is איגלאי מילתא למפרע that the זיקה was only to him and everyone else retains their אשת אח. However, ר"י does not hold of ברירה so he must say that one brother is the שליח of them all.
Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters