Playback speed

Resources for Yevamos daf 54

מראה מקומות

1.      The גמרא says that if the יבם is asleep, he cannot perform יבום. The גמרא doesn’t explain what exactly is the פּסול of sleeping. רש"י explains that the issue is that someone who is sleeping is not considered a בן דעת. תוספות in ד"ה ישן disagrees because a child could do יבום if not for some special גזרת הכתוב even though he is not considered to have דעת. תוספות ישנים asks on רש"י as well from the fact that a deaf person who has no דעת either can do יבום. Therefore, תוספות and many other ראשונים learn that the issue with ישן is that he isn’t מכוון for a מעשה ביאה at all like a מטיח בכותל. The ערוך לנר defends רש"י from both questions and says that a קטן in many cases is considered a בן דעת such as by an 11 or 12 year old who is called a “מופלא סמוך לאיש” who is considered a בן דעת מן התורה. As far as a חרש, he says it is not clear at all that a חרש is in fact קונה like תוספות ישנים asserted. What is fascinating is that the רמב"ם  in הלכות יבום פּרק ב הל׳ ד says that while a person can be קונה his יבמה even if he is שוגג, מזיד etc., he can’t be קונה her if he is drunk "שאינו מכיר כלום" or if he is sleeping. The case of a שכור is not mentioned in the גמרא. Where did theרמב"ם  get it from? The מגיד משנה says that it is similar to ישן. He also says the drunk the רמב"ם is talking about is where he was מגיע לשכרותו של לוט. It sounds like רמב"ם   agrees with רש"י that the issue with ישן is that he has no דעת at that time. רש"י  and the רמב"ם  in fact very often have the same way of learning the גמרא. However, the אור שמח  strongly disagrees with the מגיד משנה who said the drunk the רמב"ם  was speaking of was “only” מגיע לשכרותו של לוט  because the ירושלמי  says that a  חרשand שוטה  are קונה  a יבמה even though they have no דעת (which was the ראשונים’s question on רש"י). Therefore, he learns that the רמב"ם   disagrees with רש"י and learned like תוספות. When the רמב"ם  said a drunk man isn’t קונה like a ישן, he meant they both are not מכוון לביאה and that is why the רמב"ם  explained the drunk as "שאינו מכיר כלום". It also explains why the רמב"ם  puts it in the same sentence as someone who fell off a roof and was נתקע where he wasn’t מכוון לביאה.

It is interesting to note that although the יבם must at least be מכוון לביאה, the ריטב"א explains that the יבמה can actually be sleeping since you don’t need her כוונה at all.

2.      The גמרא says " רמז ליבמה שאסורה בחיי בעלה מן התורה". The word רמז makes it sound like it isn’t a real דרשה when in fact it is a certainly a דין דאורייתא. In fact, the רמב"ם in ספר המצוות שורש ג seems to brings a proof that a certain דרשה  (not ours) is only an אסמכתא בעלמא since the גמרא uses the language of “רמז”. The רמב"ן in his השגות argues and quotes many places in ש"ס where the word רמז still means a דין דאורייתא. The most famous is the גמרא in the beginning of מכות which says "רמז לעדים זוממין שלוקין מן התורה" and that is certainly a real דרשה. There are of course places where "רמז"  is in fact דרבנן such as we had earlier in יבמות on דף כ"א which said "רמז לשניות מן התורה". The רמב"ן therefore explains that the לשון of "רמז" simply connotes that the plain meaning of the פּסוק is not what the דרשה says and that you need a קבלה to be able to say the דרשה. רב שמואל אריאלי שליט"א in his notes on ספר המצוות says that the רמב"ם doesn’t count מצוות that aren’t considered מפורש בקרא and if it says "רמז" it is considered not מפורש. Therefore, the רמב"ם meant exactly like the רמב"ן said and that is what he meant when he said you cant count it because it says "רמז".

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