יבמות פּרק ב

Daf 17

·      משנה: If two brothers are both married and one dies and the a third bother is born, if the second brother does יבום  then the third brother cant marry that woman who had יבום  done to her since she is an אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו and he is אסור to her צרה since she is a צרת ערוה. If the second brother only did מאמר then the third brother must do חליצה.

·      We learn the איסור of אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו from the words כי ישבו אחים יחדו which means they had a ישיבה אחת בעולם. We learn that there is only a מצות יבום by brothers from the father from the words יחדו which means מיוחדים בנחלה as well as from a גזרה שוה of אחוה אחוה from בני יעקב. We need both because if just from יחדו we might say it refers to having both father and mother and the גזרה שוה might have been used with לוט instead of בני יעקב.

·      There is a מחלוקת if you say יש זיקה or אין זיקה. Even if you hold אין זיקה and you are מותר to the mother of a יבמה once she dies, while the יבמה is alive you cant marry her mother because of a side issue of אסור לבטל מצות יבמין.

·      The one who holds יש זיקה hold it even if there are two brothers. He also holds that even after the יבמה dies, the זיקה lives on and he still can’t marry the יבמה’s mother.

Daf 18

·      The גמרא tries to prove from our משנה like the א מ"ד אין זיקה as follows: it says in the סיפא that if the second brother did מאמר to the יבמה then the third brother does חליצה which sounds like if the second brother did nothing the third brother could doיבום  even though it would be the צרה of אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו in זיקה!? The גמרא is מדחה that in both cases you can only do חליצה and the גמרא just said מאמר to tell you it doesn’t hold like ב"ש who hold מאמר is a full קנין.

·      The גמרא then brings a ברייתא that sounds like אין זיקה and is forced to say that’s like ר"מ who holds אין זיקה. The גמרא asks on this from the משנה that says that if two sisters fall to two brothers, we make each brother do חליצה instead of יבום  which sounds like יש זיקה. We answer that everyone agrees they do חליצה in that case since אסור לבטל מצות יבמין.

·      The גמרא then clarifies that some aren’t even concerned about אסור לבטל מצות יבמין. We see this from ר"ג who says if you have two brothers married to two sisters and one is a קטנה and the husband of the adult woman dies, according to ר"ג we tell the husband of the קטנה to just wait till the wife becomes an adult and then the יבמה will be an ערוה. We see he holds אין זיקה since he doesn’t consider his current wife אחות זקוקתו and even allows us to be מבטל מצות יבמין whereas ר"מ was even worried about a ספק. The חכמים of ר"ג said to teach the קטנה to do מיאון so he could do יבום  to the adult woman.

·      שמואל said the הלכה is יש זיקה and רב holds אין זיקה.

·      משנה: If there are two brothers and one died and the second does יבום  and then a third brother is born, the third brother is אסור on the firs wife because of אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו and the second because she is her צרה. If the second brother only did מאמר then he does חליצה to the second wife. רבי שמעון says about the first case that he can do יבום  to either one.

·      רב אושעיא says that רבי שמעון held he could do יבום  to each one even in the first משנה where the third brother was born prior to the second brother doing יבום . The reason in our משנה that ר"ש allowed יבום  is because by the time the third brother was born the זיקה from the first brother was gone and was now all attached to the second brother. רב אושעי’s חידוש is that even if the second brother hadn’t done יבום  it’s as if he did because of יש זיקה. According to this, the only case of אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו is where there is only one brother and he dies and then one was born or where the second brother is still alive where the זיקה from the first brother is still around (even though once the second brother dies we will say it’s gone).

·      רב אושעיא learns his הלכה from the fact that the first משנה made it a case where the third brother was born prior to the second on doing יבום  which must be to show you the חידוש of ר"ש because otherwise our משנה is just a repeat of the first משנה.

·      The גמרא asks that we see that ר"ש was even מסופּק about מאמר with a זיקה and certainly זיקה alone as we have a case of three brothers married to three unrelated women where one brother dies and the second does מאמר and dies where the חכמים say to the third brother to do חליצה מדרבנן since she has זיקת שתי יבמין. However, ר"ש says to do יבום  to either one and חליצה to the other. You can’t do יבום  to both because maybe זיקה and/or מאמר  is fully קונה and she is considered fully married to the second husband. You also cant just do יבום  to ne and nothing to the second because maybe זיקה and/or מאמר is not קונה a all. Clearly ר"ש is מסופּק if we hold יש זיקה.

Daf 19

·      The גמרא answers that maybe ר"ש only holds of זיקה ככנוסה when there is one brother like by our משנה where the first brother died there was only one brother around, but by two brothers like the משנה we just brought of the three brothers married to unrelated women, he agrees אין זיקה.

·      The גמרא attempts to rejects this for several reasons. First, we have a ברייתא that says ר"ש holds that if theיבום  happened after the third brother is born, she is an אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו and the assumption is that includes a case of יבם אחד or it should have been מחלק. Second, we have a second ברייתא that says that three brothers married to two sisters or a mother daughter or mother granddaughter the חכמים says do חליצה but ר"ש says they are all פּטור. Now if you said יש זיקה then you should be able to doיבום  to the first one that fell since you are married to her already בזיקה. The גמרא is מדחה the second ברייתא  that if they fell at separate times it would be true that you could do יבום . However, the ברייתא is talking where they fell at the same time and ר"ש  holds like ר׳ יוסי  and אפשר לצמצם and if they fall together ר"ש has a drsasha that לצרור tells us that if אחיות fall together you don’t do יבום  to either one.

·      רב פּפּא says that ר"ש agrees that if the child was born before יבום  was done then it is אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו, and the first משנה was just לא זו אף זו.

·      The גמרא brings a proof to רב פּפּא against רב אושעיא from a ברייתא  that makes a separate בבא for נולד ואח"כ יבם and יבם ואח"כ נולד which we prove means ר"ש only argues by יבם ואח"כ נולד.

·      The ברייתא had said at the beginning that if someone was going to do מאמר but didn’t have a chance the first woman is אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו and the second is allowed to do יבום. What does it mean “was going to do”. The גמרא explains it means he did מאמר but it was בעל כרחה which is invalid like קידושין according to the חכמים but according to רבי works like יבום .

·      The גמרא explains that when ר"ש said that if you did חליצה לבעלת מאמר that it doesn’t exempt the צרה¸the reason is because the צרה is for sure זקוק ליבום to you but the one who had מאמר done to her might really be considered אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמוso the צרה still needs חליצה.

·      The reason for ר"ש who allows a case where the יבם is born after the יבום  of brother two but before his death is because he found her בהתיר The reason for the חכמים who argue is that they say עדיין יבומין הראשונים עליה because it says ולקחה לו לאשה ויבמה so even after marriage she is called a יבמה. If you’ll ask then why is a גט valid after יבום ? The answer is that it also says ולקחה לו לאשה. So we assume where it is totally היתר that we apply the more קולא approach.

Daf 20

·      The גמרא asks that according to ר"ש who says מצאה בהיתר  allows יבום to be done,if his brother from his father married his sister from his mother and then he is born and then they died, he should do יבום  since he found them בהיתר! The גמרא says the איסור אחותו never goes away, but איסור אשת אח went away for brother two so it can go away for brother three.

·      משנה: איסור ערוה doesn’t do יבום  or חליצה but איסור מצוה ואיסור קדושה does do חליצה but not יבום . If there are two יבמות who are sisters and one is an ערוה to the יבם then we say he does יבום  to the מותר sister. איסור מצוה is שניות and איסור קדושה is various חייבי לאוין.

·      The "כלל" the משנה brings is either to include צרת אילונית or exclude her since she isn’t an איסור ערוה directly.

·      איסור מצוה comes from מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים and איסור קדושה is from קדושים יהיו and if you go like the ברייתא which flips it then איסור מצוה is since it says אלה המצוות and איסור קדושה is from קדש עצמך במותר לך.

·      The משנה says that אלמנה לכהן גדול does חליצה and sounds like it doesn’t matter if she is only an ארוסה in which case it is only חייבי לאוין so why don’t we say עשה דוחה ל"ת? (the same could be asked about גרושה לכהן הדיוט even from נישואין). The גמרא says it has a דרשה from ועלתה יבמתו that says specifically that חייבי לאווין do not do יבום  yet do חליצה. Even though we have another דרשה that says כל שאינו עולה ליבום אינו עולה לחליצה, that is talking about חיובי כרת.

·      רבא asks from a ברייתא on this that says that a סריס, פּצוע דכא, כרות שפחה, וזקן who died and had מאמר, גט, or חליצה done to their wives, all are valid. If the brothers did יבום it is קונה. Similarly, if the brothers were married and died and their סריס, פּצוע דכא, כרות שפחה brothers did any of the above it is valid and if they did יבום it is קונה . However, they cant stay married to them since it is חייבי לאוין. However, we see from here that it must not be that מדאורייתא they cant do יבום or the יבום that was done would not be קונה.

·      Therefore, רבא comes out that it is only a גזרה by חייבי לאוין of ביאה ראשונה אטו ביאה שניה.

·      רבא then says that what he said was a mistake because ריש לקיש says that even מדאורייתא we only say עשה דוחה ל"ת if you cant be מקיים the מצוה without being דוחה the לאו and here the person could just do חליצה so even the יבום should be forbidden. The גמרא disproves this from a ברייתא that says you are קונה.

Daf 21

·      The גמרא explains that even ר"ל would agree here since חליצה במקום יבום אינה מצוה.

·      The גמרא says that everyone agrees that by אלמנה לכהן גדול from נישואין that if the יבם did יבום that it doesn’t פּטור the צרה.

·      The גמרא brings an אסמכתא for שניות from מכל התועבות האל.

·      It also says that measurements are more חמור than עריות since they are not possible to repent from since you don’t know who to return it to. That is why it says האלה by measurements which is a stronger לשון. The גמרא brings other אסמכתות as well.

·      The שניות are as follows: Grandmother from either side or step grandmother, uncles wife from mother, wife of mothers brother from father, great daughter in law from either side. The גמרא also said daughter of stepson but then rejected that since it is actually forbidden מדאורייתא.

·      A stepson himself is permitted to your wife and daughter (his stepsister).

·      There are four women who’s שניות do not keep going up the generations: Your mothers brother’s wife and the wife of your fathers brother from the mother, the wife of your mother’s father, and the daughter in law of your daughter.

·      The גמרא mentions that they forbade כלת בתו because you might get it mixed up with כלת בנו.

·      The גמרא asks if the mother’s brothers wife from the mothers side would be a שניה or not since there is no צד אב? Even though it would be a גזרה לגזרה, really many שניות are. Like mothers fathers wife is a גזרה  lest it be confused with father’s father’s wife. Same for fathers mother which is אטו mothers mother and wife of mothers brother from the fathers side is אטו uncles wife on the fathers side. So רב יהודה בר שמואל said a rule: any woman who is an ערוה, they made a גזרה on the male version’s wife as long as it only takes one marriage to get there. Therefore, in our case of a mother’s brother’s wife, only one marriage happened so it is אסור. However, the wife of your father in law is מותר since it requires two marriages (your and your fathers in law ) to get there.

·      The גמרא asks whether your grandfathers brothers wife is אסורה as a שניה since one generation below (father’s brother’s wife) is an ערוה so they were גוזר by a generation up or not? It seems to be a מחלוקת with no מסקנא.

Daf 22

·      רבי חייא  had the following six extra שניות : the daughter of your son of your daughter and the daughter of the son of your son are שניות. Also, the daughter of your wife’s son’s son and the daughter of your wife’s daughters son are שניות. Your mother in law’s grandmother and father in laws grandmother are also שניות. The גמרא asks what about the generation before and has no מסקנא.

·      The גמרא asks if there is a גזרת שניות by גרים and says there isn’t since it would be a גזרה לגזרה since they are really all כקטן שנולד דמי.

·      The גמרא says that גרים who are brothers from the same mother cannot testify about each other or together לכתחילה since they being related though a mother means they are definitely related, but if they did testify it is valid since they are still considered כקטן שנולד. Brothers from the same father who are גרים can even testify together לכתחילה since everyone knows they are not considered related since זרמת סוסים זרמתם. אמימר says even brothers from the same mother can testify together לכתחילה. The גמרא asks why by עריות they must get divorced (if a brother marries his sister from his mother). The גמרא answers because ב"ד knows the היתר is because of כקטן שנולד but the masses will just think it’s permissible for all.

·      משנה: All brothers are considered full brothers and cause יבום and all sons are considered full sons and exempt their fathers wives from יבום. The son is also חייב on hitting or cursing the father. The exception is a son from a נכרי או שפחה.

·      All brothers comes to include a ממזר. He is also יורש and you are מטמא לו even though by a not כשר wife you aren’t מטמא לו but here there is no thought of “divorcing” your brother so he is fully your brother.

·      The ממזר son is חייב on hitting the father only if the father did teshuva. Although the father cant do the full teshuva since having a ממזר is considered a מעוות לא יוכל לתקן.

·      Someone who is מזנה with their sister who is also their fathers wife’s daughter is חייב twice  but רבי יוסי בן יהודה says he is only חייב on her being his sister. They both learn it from דרשות from פּסוקים.

·      Your sister from your fathers אנוסה is also considered your sister. A daughter from a נכריה is not your sister.

Daf 23

·      חייבי לאוין like a ממזר are תפסי קידושין as we see from כי תהיינה לאיש שתי נשים האחת אהובה והאחת שנואה which means שנואה בנישואיה. A sister from a חייבי כריתות is also your sister as it says מולדת חוץ אחותך היא.

·      רשב"י says that a son from a goyish woman is a goy but a son from a Jewish daughter is a Jew. We learn this from the פּסוק of  כי יסיר את בנך. Even though the פּסוק is talking about the ז׳ אומות , we learn it from the extra words כי יסיר. The גמרא clarifies that the way we learn it is like ר"ש who is דורש טעמא דקרא, and since we would have been דורש it is due to הסרה anyway, so כי יסור is extra to add all nations.

·      משנה: If someone was מקדש one of two women and doesn’t know which one, he must divorce both. If he dies his brother does חליצה to both. If there were two brothers, one does חליצה and one does יבום. If two people were מקדש two sisters and each doesn’t know which one, each gives two גיטין and if they die with one brother each gives two חליצהs. If they each have two brothers then each one has one do חליצה and the other do יבום. If one has two brothers and one has one, the one with one brother does two חליצהs and the one with two brothers has one do חליצה and one do יבום. In all these cases of one doing חליצה and one doing יבום, if he they each did יבום we wouldn’t make the get divorced.

·      The גמרא tries to prove from the first line of the משנה that we should see from here that קידושין שאינן מסורין לביאה still need a divorce and count as a קידושין. The גמרא is דוחה that we are talking in our משנה where originally you knew who you gave it to and now they got mixed up. However, if someone walked over to two women and said one of you is מקודשת to me, that is not valid since the קידושין serves to אסור and not to make permissible.

·      In the case where there is one brother to one and two to the other, the one brother must do חליצה to both first or the second group when they do יבום might be dealing with a יבמה לשוק.

·      The גמרא asks why our משנה is different than the first משנה in the third פּרק where it says by four brothers where two are married to sisters and they die, the live brothers each do חליצה either because of יש זיקה or אסור לבטל מצות יבמין. There it says אם קדמו וכנסו יוציאו but here it says אם קדמו וכנסו אין מוציאין. The גמרא answers that there they were both definitely falling to יבום to each brother so each sister was a real אחות זקוקתו so the אשת אח doesn’t go away מדרבנן, as opposed to in our case only one is reall falling to יבום and the other is just a sister so if you happen to be מיבם the one who fell to יבום you did nothing wrong at all. She isn’t אסורה at all. And then your brother who did יבום also did nothing wrong since she is no longer אחות זקוקתו.

·      Even if the brothers were כהנים they can still stay married even though their wives are ספק חלוצה since חלוצה is only דרבנן and in a case of ספק is מותר.

Daf 24

·      משנה: it is a מצוה for the oldest brother to do יבום but if the youngest one did it it is valid.

·      The גמרא darshens the פּסוק of והיה הבכור. The first words tell you as above that the oldest child should do יבום. The words אשר תלד teach you that an אילונית is excluded. יקום על שם אחיו comes to say that he takes over his נחלה and we learn from a גזרה שוה of על שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם that it doesn’t mean you name the kid after him but rather it is only for inheritance.

·      The גמרא learns from כי ישבו אחים יחדיו that all children are הוקש to each other to do יבום, even if there is no בכור. Also, the oldest does יבום even if he isn’t the בכור. The פּסוק about בכור just tell you he is not נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק.

·      משנה:If someone is suspected of being with a נכריה or שפחה he should not marry here even after they convert (because of לעז). If he did they can stay married. If someone was suspected of being with an אשת איש he should not marry her even after she got divorced and if he did they must get divorced.

·      The גמרא is מדייק that the conversion is good even if they got married which means she converted for ulterior motives. The גמרא asks on this from a ברייתא that says anyone who converts for ulterior motives is not a valid convert such as in the days of מרדכי ואסתר or the famous גירי אריות. The גמרא answers that our משנה goes like רב who holds they are all good converts. Still one was suspected of having been with them before they converted should not marry them as there is לעז that people will say the original קול was true.

·      רב says that our משנה that says “if someone was נטען על אשת איש and marries her after she gets divorced from the original husband we force them to separate” is talking about a case where there were עדים that she was מזנה. However, רב ששת strongly disagrees because there is a ברייתא that says that if the woman who was suspect got divorced from her original husband, then married husband two and then divorced him, then if the guy she was suspect with marries her then we don’t force them to get divorced. Now if we are talking about a case with עדים how does the guy in between help? Rather there was only a קול and the guy in between breaks the קול. רב responds that the ברייתא was discussing a case where there was no עדים, and there was a guy in between, and still לכתחילה one shouldn’t get married but בדיעבד its always good. In other words he agrees a קול makes it that he shouldn’t marry her לכתחילה.

·      There is another ברייתא that says that if she didn’t have kids from the first husband and married the man she was suspected with we force a divorce. If she had kids from the first husband and she married the man she was suspected with, we don’t force a divorce because that would make everyone think the original kids are ממזרים. However, that is only if it was just a קול. But if there were עדים  she would need to get divorced no matter what. So you see if there is only a קול  we force a divorce if there are no kids. So רב must say our משנה is a case where she had kids but there were עדים.The reason רב is compelled to do this is the words הוציאוה sounds like ב"ד forced a divorce and ב"ד require witnesses. Or he would hold the ברייתא goes like רבי who holds that even by a דבר מכוער they must get divorced like by spit on the כילה or shoes in the opposite place they should be.

Daf 25

·      The גמרא says the הלכה is both like רב and רבי. The גמרא clarifies this means that if there is a קלא דלא פּסיק but not witnesses then the הלכה is like רבי and they must get divorced. If it is a קלא דפּסיק (meaning there is a counter קול acc. to רש"י) then they only need to get divorced if there are witnesses. A קלא דלא פּסיק means 1.5 days with continuous קול. However, if it stopped in between and then restarted then it’s considered לא דפּסיק. However, if it stopped because of fear that doesn’t count as stopping. If the person had enemies then it never counted at all.

·      There is a משנה that says that if someone divorces their wife because there were נדרים on her or because of a שם רע that she was מזנה, then he can never remarry her. The reason by נדרים is that we are afraid she will find a היתר לנדריה and then he will be מתחרט on the גט and the kids will be ממזירים. By שם רע we are afraid if she remarries and then the קול goes away and the original husband will regret the divorce. The גמרא asks what if he remarried anyway, do we force a divorce? רבה בר בר חנה says it is the same like our משנה and we force a divorce but the גמרא says they are not similar because our משנה is talking about the בועל marrying her which is מחזק the קול whereas the other משנה is talking about the original husband taking her back which erases the קול so there we don’t force a divorce.

·      משנה: The עד who delivers a divorce and says בפני נכתב or says the husband was killed or I killed him or we killed him cannot marry the woman. רבי יהודה says if he said I killed him she cant marry anyone.

·      The גמרא is מדייק that in Israel where you don’t need to say בפני נכתב and they aren’t relying on you (you are just a delivery boy), then you can marry the woman.

·      The גמרא asks how can the woman be allowed to marry others when רב יוסף said פּלוני רבעני לרצוני he is not believed since he made himself a רשע! Moreover, רב מנשה holds that by a פּסול דאורייתא we won’t allow testimony even for עדות אשה which we are often more lenient by. Are we forced to say רב מנשה holds like ר׳ יהודה? The גמרא answers that רב מנשה would here we can say like רבא against רב יוסף that אין אדם משים עצמו רשע and we are פּלגינן דיבורא to only believe that the husband is dead but not that the witness killed him. And רב יוסף would tell you that he doesn’t hold of רב מנשה.

·      The גמרא explains that when the משנה said “we killed him” it meant “I was there when he was killed” or else רבי יהודה would not have agreed he could testify.

·      משנה: if a Rabbi paskens that a woman is אסור to her husband because of a נדר then he should not marry her. If he was just part of a ב"ד for חליצה or מיאון then he can.

·      A יחיד מומחה can be מתיר מדרים.

·      מיאון requires three people.

·      The גמרא ask what happens if the Rabbi who אסורed the woman on her husband does marry her? Do we force a divorce. It seems it is a מחלוקת אמוראים but the גמרא proves she doesn’t need to get divorced from the beginning of the previous משנה that says that if someone was suspected with a גיורת prior to her conversion he shouldn’t marry her but if he does he doesn’t need to get divorced so you see from just לעז we don’t make people get divorced.

Daf 26

·      משנה: If any of these men had been married at the time they were witnesses and then their wives died, they can marry the woman they testified about. Also, if the women got married to other men and then got divorce from them then they can marry the witnesses. And the women are always allowed to marry relatives of the witnesses.

·      The גמרא is מדייק that if the witnesses’ wives were divorced then they cannot marry the woman they testified about, yet a ברייתא says even if they got divorced they could marry the second woman. The גמרא clarifies it depends if they had been fighting with their wives previously, such that if they had been fighting previously then it wasn’t because of this woman that he started a fight. Alternatively, it depends who stated the fight. If he started it then we say perhaps he did that because he wanted an excuse to divorce her and marry someone else.

·      The משנה sounds like if she got divorced twice she could get married again and the same if two husbands had died. This sounds not like רבי who says two times makes a חזקה. The גמרא answers that the cases are only one divorce plus one death but not two of either.

·      If someone is suspected with a woman he cant marry her mother, daughter, or sister since we are afraid once he marries them the woman he was suspected with will be around and he will come to be מזנה with her. If so why can the woman marry the witnesses brother? The answer is women hang out with their women relatives more than men hang out with their men relatives. Also, women don’t אסור each other on other women (meaning if the sister is מזנה it doesn’t אסור the wife, but if the wife is מזנה she is אסור on her husband so its less likely to happen.

·      The גמרא clarifies she is מותר to marry any of the witnesses relatives, even the father and son.