Resources for Yevamos daf 11
1. The גמרא says that according ר׳ יוחנן once a יבם does יבום to one of his brother’s wives, the rest of the צרות remain with the איסור עשה of אשר לא יבנה. A question is raised from the following גמרא: the גמרא on דף נ ע"ב says that if a person did מאמר (קידושין) to one lady and יבום to her צרה, then he needs to give both of them a גט and חליצה to the one he did יבום with. רש"י inד"ה ביאה אחר מאמר explains the reason for the חליצה is that we are afraid people will think ביאה after a קנין is a מעליותא and they will come to say ביאה אחר ביאה is a מעליותא and they will come to do יבום to two wives and beפּוגע באיסור אשת אח. The מפרשים all ask on רש"י from our גמרא which says clearly that after יבום there is no longer an איסור אשת אח, there is only an עשה. A similar question is asked on the בית יוסף in אה"ע סימן קס"א who says after a man does יבום to one wife the rest have an איסור אשת אח. The בית מאיר asks that the ב"י seems to be against ר׳ יוחנן in our גמרא who says it is only an עשה. He answers with a יסוד: the עשה of אשר לא יבנה is not a new עשה. Rather it is saying that the original איסור אשת אח that was going to leave doesn’t leave but is lowered to an אשת אח that is only an איסור עשה. This is what רש"י and the בית יוסף meant by the “איסור אשת אח”. This is actually found explicitly in the מאירי in his הקדמה הראשונה to מסכת יבמות.
2. The גמרא says that צרת סוטה is אסורה because טומאה כתיב בה כעריות. It is clear from our גמרא that the גמרא is referring to a סוטה ודאית and that both the סוטה and her צרה are פּטורות מן היבום והחליצה. There is a גמרא in סוטה דף ה׳ ע"ב that asks why the סוטה doesn’t do יבום and רב יוסף answers that it is because it says "ליבם ולא לאחר". It then asks that if so why does she need חליצה and answers that if the original husband himself needed a גט כ"ש the brother will need חליצה. There is a מחלוקת ראשונים how to understand that גמרא which seems to contradict our גמרא which says חליצה is not needed. תוספות there in סוטהunderstands that the גמרא there is only referring to a סוטה ספק which doesn’t have "טומאה" said by it. The רמב"ן here in our גמרא inד"ה הא דאמר says that it is a מחלוקת הסוגיות and our רב disagreed with רב יוסף there. The ראב"ד on the רי"ף paskens like the גמרא in סוטה that even a סוטה ודאית needs חליצה and the רמ"א is מחמיר for his שיטה in אה"ע סימן קע"ג סעיף י"א. It is fascinating to note that the רי"ף’s גירסא in our גמרא is that the person who asked on רב from סוטה ספק was not רב אשי but rather רב יוסף who is the person quoted above in מס׳ סוטה who holds (acc. to the רמב"ן) that even a סוטה ודאית needs חליצה.
One of the fundamental questions in our סוגיא is when רב says "טומאה כתיב בה כעריות", where did he see that? The פּסוק the גמרא quotes by מחזיר גרושתו is talking to the בעל, that he cannot stay married to his wife after she was מזנה תחתיו. Who says that has anything at all to do with the יבם? There are several possibilities. The first is that it says the word ונטמאה three times which the גמרא in סוטה דף כ"ח ע"ב says one is for the בעל, one is for בועל, and one is for תרומה (that she can’t eat it). However, the ירושלמי in our סוגיא (פּרק א הל׳ ב) says the last ונטמאה is for the יבם. The נהור שרגא suggest that רב held like that ירושלמי in which case we would have a clear source. Another possibility is the רמב"ן who says it is a combination of the דרשה of לאחר ולא ליבם that tells you a specific איסור by the יבם, and טומאה which is written there that makes it an ערוה to פּטור the צרה. The קובץ הערות in סימן ט"ז אות א׳ suggests that it comes from the same ק"ו we say by מחזיר גרושתו: if she was אסור to the husband, כ"ש she is אסור to the יבם. By a סוטה ואדי we can up it a notch and say if the תורה called her an ערוה to the בעל, then certainly she is an ערוה to the יבם.
3. The רמב"ם in הלכות יבום וחליצה פּרק ו הל׳ י"ט paskens that a צרת ספק סוטה can even do יבום! The גר"ח on that halacha asks why we are not afraid that the סוטה might have been מזנה in which case she would be a real צרת סוטה which is an ערוה? This is similar to תוספות’s question at the end of ד"ה צרת סוטה who asks how could there have been a ה"א in the גמרא in סוטה that a סוטה ספק could do יבום when if she is guilty she is an ערוה!? He answers that קינוי is just a גזה"כ that she is אסורה to her husband but there really is no ספק at all because a woman has a חזקה that she is not guilty until proven otherwise. אין אוסרין על היחוד. Therefore, where the גזה"כ of קינוי is not relevant then we don’t consider it a ספק at all, so the גמרא in סוטה can have a ה"א there is יבום and in practice there is יבום by the צרה.
Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters