Playback speed

Resources for Yevamos daf 50

1.      The משנה discusses the concept of מאמר by a יבמה. The גמרא explains that the reason חז"ל invented the concept of מאמר was because people would think that since מאמר normally works (by a typical woman), if they said מאמר didn’t work then people would think that ביאה isn’t קונה either and would come to be בא על שתי יבמות.

The גמרא back on דף י"ט brought a מחלוקת רבי ורבנן whether מאמר can be קונה בעל כרחה. רבי says it works בעל כרחה just like יבום does, and the חכמים say it can’t work בעל כרחה just like קידושין can’t. Assuming both רבי and the חכמים agree with our גמרא that מאמר was instituted so that people should not get confused and come to be בא על שתי יבמות, how do we understand their argument as to whether מאמר is קונה קונה בעל כרחה or not? It should just be dependent on whether the גזרה applies or not and not if we learn it from יבום or קידושין! The חזון יחזקאל in פּרק ב׳ הל׳ ב explains that רבי held that the main גזרה is from יבום itself. In other words, יבום works בעל כרחה and if they said that מאמר doesn’t workבעל כרחה then people would say יבום doesn’t work בעל כרחה either and would come to the same issue of being בא על שתי בתים. However, the חכמים held that the main גזרה was from מאמר בעלמא. Therefore, if people saw a מאמר בעל כרחה not work they would know that it doesn’t typically work and would not come to think that יבום doesn’t work. The only גזרה is a case where מאמר בעלמא works, and in such a case it would need to work by יבום too or people would think ביאה doesn’t work either.

There is a another interesting point from that גמרא that explains our משנה. Our משנה brings the מחלוקת רבן גמליאל וחכמים whether there is מאמר אחר מאמר or גט אחר גט. What is their מחלוקת based on? The גמרא discusses this later but one possibility is whether מאמר is treated literally as a full  קידושין דרבנןor do we say that it is just a rabbinic creation to avoid a גזרה but it doesn’t function like an actual קידושין. The  חכמים who say that there is מאמר אחר מאמר seem to hold that it is just a דרבנן creation and רבן גמליאל seems to hold it is literally like קידושין (מדרבנן) and therefore there can’t be מאמר אחר מאמר. In חידושי ר׳ נחום on דף י"ט, he explains the מחלוקת of רבי ורבנן in that גמרא (mentioned above) exactly like that: the רבנן who says it isn’t קונה בעל כרחה hold it’s literally like קידושין so it must be done willingly whereas רבי who holds it is קונה בעל כרחה would say its like יבום דרבנן which works against someone’s will.

2.      As mentioned above, the גמרא says that מאמר was invented because of a גזרה that you might say if מאמר doesn’t work by יבום then ביאה doesn’t work. However, on דף נ"ב we are told that when our משנה says that if you do מאמר first and then ביאה we say הרי זו כמצותה, it means that one is always supposed to do מאמר before יבום. The reason one must do מאמר first is presumably the same reason one is not supposed to be מקדש בבאיה: it is considered דרך פּריצות. If so, the תקנה of מאמר is not because of a גזרה but rather so that it should not be דרך פּריצות! The ראש פּינה הל׳ יבום פּרק ב הל׳ ב answers that there are two parts to מאמר: one part they were מתקן so it shouldn’t be דרך פּריצות. However, whether it would make her אסור בקרובים like a real קידושין was only because of the גזרה. This is מדיוק in רש"י who says the גמרא’s question is why she is אסור על קרובים and not why it works in any way.

Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha

New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters

Rabbi Mordechai Papoff - English Topics

Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya

Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview

Rabbi Yishai Rasowsky - Tosfos Synopsis