Friday, June 22, 2007

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 51 - Highlights

The Gemora states: Rabban Gamliel and the Chachamim only argued regarding a get after a get and a ma’amar after a ma’amar; but a get given to one yevamah or a ma’amar performed with one will certainly be effective.

The Gemora asks: Why do the Rabbis say that a get given to a yevamah is effective (resulting in the prohibition of Once he did not build, he should never again build)?

The Gemora answers: It is because the giving of a get is effective elsewhere (by a divorce from a man to his wife). If it would not be effective by a yevamah, people would equate chalitzah with a get, and say that just as a get will not release the yevamah, chalitzah also won’t, and then the yavam will cohabit with the yevamah after chalitzah. (It was therefore decreed that one cannot cohabit with a yevamah after a chalitzah.)

The Gemora asks: Why do the Rabbis say that a ma’amar to a yevamah is effective (and he and his brothers can no longer perform a yibum)?

The Gemora answers: It is because ma’amar is effective elsewhere (by a marriage – either through money or a document). If it would not be effective by a yevamah, people would equate ma’amar with cohabitation, and say that just as a ma’amar does not acquire the yevamah, cohabitation also won’t, and then the yavam will cohabit with a second yevamah after cohabitation. (50b)

The Gemora asks: Why do the Rabbis say that there is validity to something after a deficient cohabitation? (Why is there still a need for chalitzah; shouldn’t the cohabitation nullify the zikah?)

The Gemora answers: We say as follows: Regarding the case where he gave a bill of divorce to one yevamah, and he cohabited with the other widow, she (the one with whom he cohabited with) requires a bill of divorce and chalitzah; the chalitzah is required because otherwise, people might equate cohabitation after chalitzah with cohabitation after a get. They would see that cohabitation after a get does not require chalitzah, and would assume that this cohabitation is ideal. This would lead people to allow cohabitation even after chalitzah. It is for this reason that the Rabbis decreed that cohabitation after a get requires chalitzah.

And regarding the case where the yavam married this one by ma'amar, and cohabited with a second widow, they require two bills of divorce and chalitzah; the chalitzah is required because otherwise, people might equate cohabitation after ma’amar with cohabitation after cohabitation. They would see that cohabitation after ma’amar does not require chalitzah, and would assume that this cohabitation is ideal. This would lead people to allow cohabitation (with one widow) even after cohabitation was performed with a different widow. It is for this reason that the Rabbis decreed that cohabitation after ma’amar requires chalitzah. (50b)

The Gemora asks: Why do the Rabbis say that there is no validity to something after a deficient chalitzah? (Why is it different that a deficient cohabitation, which is only partially effective?)

The Gemora answers: We say as follows: Why should we be concerned? Should the Rabbis decree that chalitzah after a get should not be fully effective because of the case of chalitzah after chalitzah? There is nothing to be concerned about. Let them perform chalitzah incessantly; there is no prohibition against that. Should the Rabbis decree that chalitzah after ma’amar should not be fully effective because of the case of chalitzah after cohabitation? There is nothing to be concerned about. Chalitzah after ma’amar requires a get because of the ma’amar, so too, a chalitzah after cohabitation will require a get for the cohabitation. (50b)

Rava asks: What is the reasoning of Rabban Gamliel? (Rabban Gamliel says: There is no validity for a get after a get. If two wives (e.g., Leah and Chanah) of a dead, childless man came before his brother for yibum, and he gave a bill of divorce to Leah, and afterwards he gave a bill of divorce to Chanah, the latter's bill of divorce is not valid, and he is not forbidden to marry her relatives. Rabban Gamliel says further: And no ma'amar after ma’amar. If one yavam married by ma'amar two yevamos from one brother who came before him for yibum, i.e., he married one of them and afterwards married the other; or if two yevamim married by ma'amar, one yevamah; the second ma'amar is void, and she does not require a bill of divorce from him to annul the ma'amar, and he is not forbidden to marry her relatives.)

He answers: Rabban Gamliel is uncertain whether a get to a yevamah effects full rejection of the yevamah or none at all. He is also uncertain whether ma’amar to a yevamah effects full acquisition of the yevamah or none at all.

Regarding a get: If the first get given effected a full rejection, what would the second one accomplish? If the first get given didn’t accomplish anything, the second one will not accomplish anything either.

Regarding ma’amar: If the first ma’amar effected a full acquisition, what would the second one accomplish? If the first ma’amar didn’t accomplish anything, the second one will not accomplish anything either.

Abaye asks from the following braisa: Rabban Gamliel admits that a get (to one widow) has validity after a ma’amar (to the co-wife), and the yavam will be prohibited from performing a yibum with them or marrying the get-recipient’s relatives. He also admits that a ma’amar (to one widow) has validity after a get (to the co-wife), and the yavam will be prohibited from marrying the ma’amar-recipient’s relatives. He also admits by a get given to a third yevamah after a cohabitation with a second yevamah followed a ma’amar to the first. He also admits by a ma’amar to a third yevamah after a cohabitation with a second yevamah followed a get given to the first.

If a get or ma’amar does not accomplish anything, let the cohabitation afterwards be regarded as a cohabitation at the beginning (as if the ma’amar or get was nonexistent), and we learned in the Mishna regarding cohabitation, when it is at the beginning, there is no validity for anything which follows it?

Abaye offers his own explanation: Rabban Gamliel maintains that a get does effect a partial rejection and ma’amar accomplishes a partial acquisition. One get after another get has no validity because the first get given effected a partial rejection, and the second get cannot add to that rejection. One ma’amar after another ma’amar has no validity because the first ma’amar effected a partial acquisition, and the second ma’amar cannot add to that acquisition. However, regarding a get after a ma’amar or a ma’amar after a get; there can be validity since one is effecting a partial rejection, and one is accomplishing a partial acquisition.

The Chachamim disagree and maintain that the Rabbis decreed that there is the ability for a get or a ma’amar to take effect with each and every yavam and yevamah. (Since it is only a partial rejection or acquisition, the zikah-attachment still exists.)

Abaye concludes by explaining Rabban Gamliel’s opinion in the braisa. A deficient cohabitation is stronger than a ma’amar and weaker than a ma’amar. It is stronger because a ma’amar after a ma’amar has no validity, but cohabitation after a ma’amar is effective. It is weaker because a ma’amar after a get is completely effective (and a second ma’amar will not accomplish anything), but cohabitation after a get is not completely effective (and a ma’amar afterwards will have validity). (50b – 51a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabban Gamliel says: There is no validity for a get after a get. If two wives (e.g., Leah and Chanah) of a dead, childless man came before his brother for yibum, and he gave a bill of divorce to Leah, and afterwards he gave a bill of divorce to Chanah, Rabban Gamliel maintains that he should perform chalitzah with the first yevamah (Leah), and he is forbidden to marry her relatives. He is permitted to marry the relatives of the second yevamah (Chanah). The Chachamim hold that he is forbidden to marry the relatives of both of them, and he is required to perform chalitzah with one of them. And a similar halacha applies if two yevamim give each a bill of divorce to one yevamah.

The braisa continues: If one yavam married by ma'amar two yevamos from one brother who came before him for yibum, i.e., he married one of them and afterwards married the other; Rabban Gamliel maintains that he should give a get to the first yevamah and perform a chalitzah with her, and he is forbidden to marry her relatives. He is permitted to marry the relatives of the second yevamah. The Chachamim hold that he is required to give a get to both of them, and he is forbidden to marry the relatives of both of them, and he is required to perform chalitzah with one of them. And a similar halacha applies if two yevamim perform ma’amar to one yevamah. (51a)

The Gemora asks on Shmuel from this braisa: The braisa had stated: If two wives (e.g., Leah and Chanah) of a dead, childless man came before his brother for yibum, and he gave a bill of divorce to Leah, and afterwards he gave a bill of divorce to Chanah, Rabban Gamliel maintains that he should perform chalitzah with the first yevamah (Leah), and he is forbidden to marry her relatives. He is permitted to marry the relatives of the second yevamah (Chanah). Shouldn’t this be a refutation of Shmuel? Shmuel said: There were two brothers, one of them had two wives and died childless. The yavam gave a get (bill of divorce) to one of the women. He is now prohibited from performing yibum with any of these women, but he is required to perform a chalitzah. (Although giving a get to a yevamah does not accomplish anything (for the Torah prescribes only a yibum or a chalitzah with a yevamah), the Rabbis decreed that it should be treated similar to a chalitzah.) If the yavam performs a chalitzah with the woman who received the get, the co-wife is not released.

Why then does Rabban Gamliel maintain that the chalitzah performed with the first yevamah releases the co-wife; the chalitzah is deficient since it follows the giving of a get?

The Gemora answers: Shmuel could say that he is issuing his ruling in accordance with those that hold that there exists a zikah-attachment between the yavam and the yevamah; a deficient chalitzah will not release the co-wife. Rabban Gamliel would hold that there is no zikah-attachment, and a deficient chalitzah can release the co-wife. (51a)

The Gemora assumes that if Rabban Gamliel maintains that there is no zikah-attachment, it is evident that the Chachamim hold that there is a zikah-attachment. If so, let the braisa be a refutation of Rabbah bar Rav Huna in the name of Rav.

The braisa had stated: And a similar halacha applies if two yevamim give each a bill of divorce to one yevamah. (If each yavam gave the yevamah a get, only one of them is required to perform a chalitzah with her.)

Rabbah bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: Three sisters who are sisters-in-law (they were married to three brothers) who fall for yibum before two brothers, one brother performs chalitzah to one of them, the other brother performs chalitzah to a different one of them, and the middle one (the other sister) requires chalitzah from both of them. (Since there is a zikah-attachment between the widows and the brothers, and the chalitzah performed with the middle sister is a deficient chalitzah (because she cannot be taken for yibum since she is the sister of his chalutzah), and a deficient chalitzah requires that she goes for chalitzah to all of the brothers.)

Why do the Chachamim rule that only one chalitzah is necessary?

The Gemora answers: Rabbah bar Rav Huna would answer that both Rabban Gamliel and the Chachamim would hold that there is no zikah-attachment; their dispute is only regarding the validity of a get following a get or ma’amar following a ma’amar. (51a – 51b)

Rabbi Yochanan said: Rabban Gamliel, Beis Shamai, Rabbi Shimon, Ben Azzai and Rabbi Nechemia all maintain that ma’amar accomplishes a complete acquisition of the yevamah.

Rabbi Yochanan explains: Rabban Gamliel’s view is evident from the Mishna. (There is no validity for a ma'amar after a ma’amar; the first ma’amar leaves no room for the second one to accomplish anything.)

Beis Shamai’s opinion can be derived from the following ruling: There were three brothers, two of whom were married two sisters, and one is unmarried. If one of the husbands of the sisters died, and the bachelor performed a ma'amar, and afterwards his second brother died. Beis Shamai said: His wife stays with him, and the other is released because she is his wife's sister. (Beis Shamai maintains that ma’amar is Biblically valid and the sister is regarded as his wife’s sister.)

The Gemora demonstrates that Rabbi Shimon and Ben Azzai also hold that ma’amar accomplishes a complete acquisition of the yevamah.

Rabbi Nechemia’s position regarding ma’amar can be proven from his opinion cited in the Mishna (50b). Rabbi Nechemia said: It is all one, cohabitation and chalitzah, whether at the beginning, or in the middle, or at the end, there is no validity for anything which follows it. The Rabbis equated a deficient cohabitation with a ma’amar, and Rabbi Nechemia maintains that there is no validity for anything which follows a deficient cohabitation. It can thus be proven that he holds that ma’amar accomplishes a full acquisition. (51b)

[END]

0 comments: