Resources for Yevamos daf 13

מראה מקומות

1.      The גמרא says that קידושין are not תופסין between a יבמה and anyone who isn’t a יבם until she gets חליצה from her יבם. The אתוון דאורייתא in סימן ח׳ has a fascinating חקירה: what is the nature of this איסור יבמה לשוק? Is it a new type of אישות that the תורה created between the יבם and יבמה or is it really the אישות of the dead brother that never fully went away? Alternatively, perhaps it isn’t אישות at all and is just a new לאו which is strong enough to block תפיסת קידושין? There are numerous נפקא מינהs to this חקירה. For example, if זיקה is really a continuation of the dead brother’s אישות or even the יבם’s אישות, then it would have a דין of עריות which would make it יהרג ואל יעבור to violate the לאו. Also, all testimonies would need two people as אין דבר שבערוה פּחות משנים. To answer this question רב יוסף ענגיל ז"ל brings several proofs in each direction. One proof is the גמרא in סוטה דף כ"ד ע"א which says (according to one אמורא) that the words of the פּסוק by סוטה of "תחת אישיך" excludes a שומרת יבם from the  פּרשת סוטה but does not exclude an ארוסה. The reason is that an ארוסה is “קידושין דידיה”as opposed to a יבם which is not דידיה. It sounds like זיקה from the יבם is considered קידושין but it is considered his dead brother’s קידושין and not the יבם’s. However, the גמרא in גיטין דף פּ"ג ע"ב sounds like the opposite is true as it says: “where do you ever find that one man makes a woman אסור to the world and another man makes her מותר?” The גמרא answers that a שומרת יבם is made אסור by the dead brother and later made permissible by the יבם. The גמרא rejects that and says the dead brother doesn’t make her אסור as he is dead and his איסור is gone. It is the יבם who makes her אסור. It sounds like the זיקה is completely from the יבם and not from the dead bother at all. He has many other proofs in each direction.

2.      רב אשי  says that the reason why a צרה exempts a צרת צרה from יבום is that just like the צרה was “במקום ערוה קיימא”, so too the צרת צרה is “במקום ערוה קיימא”. The קובץ הערות in סימן ג׳ אות י"ד וט"ו asks what the phrase “במקום ערוה קיימא” really means? The simple explanation is that the צרה never had her אשת אח removed, so she therefore becomes an ערוה herself of אשת אח to פּטור her צרה. However, רב אלחנן ז"ל thinks this does not fit into the words. Furthermore, we would have רבי עקיבא איגר’s famous question of why do you need a פּסוק for צרת צרה when it is really just a צרת ערוה דאשת אח? (Even רב אשי agrees you need a פּסוק to as it says on דף ג). The קובץ הערות answers that the חידוש of לצרור is that the צרה becomes like the ערוה herself. So צרת בתו is considered just like בתו, but the אשת אח of the צרה goes away. That is the meaning of “במקום ערוה קיימא”—she becomes like the ערוה. We can also understand why one would need a פּסוק to tell you that this חידוש continues on to the צרת צרה. The רי"ף’s גירסא in our גמרא is one ערוה is פּוטר many צרות. That language sounds like its actually the original ערוה herself that is being פּוטר all the women by transferring her ערוה status to them all.

There is a similar question discussed on עמוד ב: the reason that ב"ש does not פּטור a צרת ערוה is because אין איסור חל על איסור and אחות אשה is not חל so the ערוה is not present. However, as תוספות in ד"ה דלא אתי explains, theאיסור אשת אח  of the יבמה doesn’t go away (since if it did the אחות אשה would fall), so the צרה again should be a צרת ערוה!? There are many answers given by the ראשונים and אחרונים. The רש"ש explains that according to ב"ש the אשת אח cannot פּטור the צרה since אשת אח only brings יבום and never פּטור’s a צרה.

3.      The גמרא in one תירוץ says that לא תתגודדו does not apply to מנהגים. The ריטב"א writes that while the גמרא comes off that תירוץ for a side reason (that it was איסור and not מנהג), the concept is still true. The מגן אברהם in סימן תצ"ג ס"ק ו clarifies that it depends what kind of מנהג. If it’s a מנהג that everyone agrees that the other people should be doing what they are doing, like if in one town they fast on a certain day because of things that happened to them and in another town they don’t because nothing happened to them, then there is no לא תתגודדו. However, if the difference in מנהגים is based on a מחלוקת, then there is לא תתגודדו. The מחצית השקל says that the מגן אברהם understood that this was exactly the שקלא וטריא of our גמרא. When ר"ל said there is no לא תתגודדו by the מנהג of ערב פּסח, he understood it was just a custom that one town had in which case there is no לא תתגודדו. When ר"י responded it’s a מחלוקת ב"ש וב"ה so it’s really איסור, he meant to say that a מנהג based on מחלוקת does have לא תתגודדו.

Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha

Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya

Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder

New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters