Resources for Yevamos daf 51

מראה מקומות

1.      The גמרא says that according to רבן גמליאל who holds אין גט אחר גט, if one gave a גט to each of his two יבמות then he should only give חליצה to the first יבמה. רש"י in ד"ה חולץ לראשונה explains that the גמרא is giving the יבם an עצה טובה to give the גט to the first woman so that he will not become אסור on the second lady’s relatives, because if he gives the גט to the second woman he will be אסור on both of their relatives. The משמעות of רש"י is that who he gives the גט to is really up to him but we are just giving him good advice regarding who it makes more sense for him to give it to. The מהרש"א asks that it is certainly not optional since we learned in the fourth פּרק that if you have two women fall to יבום and one woman is already פּסול לכהונה that you must give חליצה to the one that is already פּסול לכהונה so as not to make the other woman אסור to כהנים. The phrase the גמרא uses is “לא ישפּוך אדם מי בורו ואחרים צריכים לו”. If so, why does רש"י says it is just good advice and not a חיוב? He answers with a tremendous חידוש: he says even in שיטת רבן גמליאל the second גט given to the second woman still makes her אסור לכהונה even though it accomplishes nothing in terms of her relatives. The רש"ש and others disagree and say any גט that can affect a woman לכהונה will affect a יבמה and since we know that the woman is not affected by the second גט it must not אסור her לכהונה. Therefore, he suggests that רש"י wrote it to include the case where it was two יבםs who had each given a גט to one יבמה where the first יבם should do חליצה so the second doesn’t become אסור in her relatives.

2.      The גמרא says that by a case where a child nine years old is בא על יבמתו and then his other brother who is also nine is also בא עליה, then according to ר"ש she isn’t נפסלה on the first brother since if the first ביאה worked then the second ביאה is nothing in terms of יבום. Since the ביאה of a nine year old is only considered to be like מאמר, it must be that ר"ש holds מאמר is קונה קנין גמור.  The issue is as follows: רש"י in ד"ה ביאת שני asks that even if the ביאה of the second brother doesn’t accomplish anything, why shouldn’t it be like אשתו שזינתה which makes her אסורה on her original husband? He answers that this is only true by קינוי וסתירה but in the case of יבום there obviously wasn’t any קינוי וסתירה. תוספות in  ד"ה אי ביאתand the other ראשונים say that this must be a טעות סופר in רש"י since you only need קינוי וסתירה when there is no עידי טומאה but if the עדים saw the actual זנות then she is אסורה on her husband. Therefore they say the גמרא is discussing a case where the second ביאה was על כרחה where she wouldn’t be אסורה על בעלה. The רמב"ן brings a fascinating רב אב"ד that says that since ביאת קטן is only דרבנן they were never מתקן for her to be נאסרה על בעלה if she is מזנה. This is rejected by תוספות and the other  ראשונים since כל דתקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תקון. Nonetheless, the ישרש יעקב  brings the משנה למלך in פּרק י"א מהלכות אישות הל׳ י"א in ד"ה ראיתי לדקדק who writes in the name of מהר"י באסאן as a דבר פּשוט that the wife of a חרש who was מזנה is not אסורה על בעלה since the קידושין is only דרבנן. 

Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha

Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder

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