Daf Yomi - Yevamos 52 - Highlights

The Mishna had stated: If he married by ma'amar and cohabited with her, then this is according to the mitzvah.

The Gemora states that this seemingly would provide support for Rav Huna’s ruling. Rav Huna said: The mitzvah of yibum should be performed in the following manner: The yavam should perform a kiddushin and then he should cohabit with her.

The Gemora deflects the proof: Perhaps the Mishna means that performing ma’amar and then cohabitating is also in accordance with the mitzvah (but not necessarily the preferable method).

The Gemora asks: Isn’t it obvious that that he is performing the mitzvah; why was it necessary for the Mishna to state it?

The Gemora answers: Since we previously learned that one who perform ma’amar with his yevamah, the zikah-attachment that had previously existed leaves him, and an erusin and nisuin attachment takes effect (he may not cohabit with her now without her consent), it might enter your mind to say that one who cohabits with a yevamah after a ma’amar does not fulfill the mitzvah of yibum; the Mishna teaches us that this method is in accordance with the mitzvah. (52a)

Rav Huna said: The mitzvah of yibum should be performed in the following manner: The yavam should perform a kiddushin and then he should cohabit with her. If he cohabited and then he performed ma’amar, he has nevertheless acquired her.

The Gemora asks: If he cohabited and then he performed ma’amar, he has nevertheless acquired her. Isn’t that obvious; he certainly acquired her through cohabitation?

The Gemora revises Rav Huna’s ruling: If he cohabited with her without performing ma’amar, he has nevertheless acquired her.

The Gemora asks: We have learned in a braisa that one who cohabits with his brother’s wife without performing ma’amar first incurs lashes; this would indicate that he does not acquire her as his wife.

The Gemora answers: The lashes incurred are Rabbinical lashes. The Rabbis decreed that the yavam should perform ma’amar prior to cohabiting with her; otherwise, it would be acting immorally.

The Gemora proves that the lashes incurred are Rabbinical, for Rav gave lashes to one who betroths a woman with cohabitation (without giving money or a document beforehand), and one who would betroth a woman in the marketplace, and one who would betroth a woman without a prior arrangement to marry her, and one who would nullify a get, and one who would pronounce that the get is being written without his consent, and one who is disrespectful towards a messenger from the Rabbis, and one who has been under an excommunication for thirty days and does not come to Beis Din to have it nullified, and a groom who lives in his father-in-law’s house.

The Nehardeans said: Rav only gave lashes in the case of the man who betroths a woman with cohabitation, and without a prior arrangement to marry her. Others said that he would administer lashes even if there was an arrangement to marry beforehand (betrothing through cohabitation is regarded as licentious behavior). (52a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: How is ma’amar performed? The yavam gives the yevamah money or objects worth money. Abaye explains the braisa’s next question: What is the text of the kesuvah to the yevamah? (The text of the ma’amar would be the same as a regular betrothal, i.e. he would write on a paper or on a piece of earthenware, Behold, you are betrothed to me.) The braisa answers: The yavam writes: I so-and-so the son of so-and-so have accepted so-and-so, my yevamah, upon myself, to feed and support her as fitting, except that her kesuvah obligation rests upon the property of the first husband.

The Gemora adds: But if there are no assets available from the deceased, the Rabbis established that there should be a kesuvah from the yavam as well, in order that she should not be so easy to divorce. (52a)

Abaye asked Rabbah: If a yavam gave a get to his yevamah and said, “You are divorced from me, but you cannot marry anyone else,” what is the halacha? (Can she still be taken for yibum by the yavam or any of his brothers?) Do we say that a get which would be effective to a married woman will also be effective to a yevamah, but one that will not be effective to a married woman will also not be effective to a yevamah; or perhaps, people might confuse this case with a legitimate get, and therefore the get should be considered effective?

Rabbah answered: We are concerned that people might confuse this case with a legitimate get, and therefore the get is considered effective.

Rabbah bar Chanan asked: If the yavam would give her a blank piece of paper and say to her, “you are divorced,” will you say that he disqualified her?

Abaye answers: There is a valid distinction between the two cases. In the case when he gives her a blank piece of paper, he does not disqualify her from the Kehunah whereas here, he would disqualify her from the Kehunah. (52a)

Rami bar Chama said: They had stated: If one told a scribe, “Write a get for my arusah, and when I perform nisuin with her, I will divorce her,” this get is valid because he has the ability to use the get now to divorce her. However, if he would tell the scribe, “Write a get for this woman (who is presently not his arusah), and when I perform nisuin with her, I will divorce her,” this get is not valid because he does not have the ability to use the get now to divorce her (since he isn’t married to her now).

Rami bar Chama inquired: What would the halacha be if a yavam would tell the scribe, “Write a get for my yevamah, and when I perform yibum with her, I will divorce her”? Do we say that since she is attached to him with a zikah, the get is valid, or perhaps, we would say that the get is not valid since he did not perform ma’amar with her yet?

The Gemora states: Let the inquiry stand (without a resolution). (52a – 52b)

Rav Chanania inquired: If a yavam gave a get to the yevamah, but he wrote that the get should be effective for the zikah-attachment, but not for the ma’amar, or for the ma’amar, but not for the zikah, what is the halacha? Do we say that the ma’amar adds to the zikah-attachment, and the yavam is attempting to divorce half of his wife, and thus the get will not be valid? Or perhaps, the ma’amar and the zikah-attachment are independent of each other, and the get will be valid?

The Gemora answers: Let this inquiry be resolved from Rava’s statement; Rava said: If one gave a get for the ma’amar, but not for the zikah-attachment, the get is considered valid.

The Gemora states: This halacha was obvious to Rava, but not to Rabbi Chanania.

The Gemora concludes: Let the inquiry stand (without a resolution). (52b)

The Mishna had stated: If he submitted to chalitzah and then either married by ma'amar, or he gave a bill of divorce, or he cohabited with her, there is no validity to anything that follows chalitzah.

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: This follows Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, who maintains that kiddushin cannot take effect upon a woman who is subject to a negative prohibition (once chalitzah has been performed, she becomes forbidden on account of the prohibition of Once he did not build, he shall never again build). However, according to the Chachamim, there is validity to something that follows chalitzah.

The Gemora cites a braisa supporting this interpretation of the Mishna. Rebbe said: The words of the Mishna follows Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, who maintains that kiddushin cannot take effect upon a woman who is subject to a negative prohibition. However, according to the Chachamim, there is validity to something that follows chalitzah. Rebbe states his own opinion: Kiddushin will take effect on a chalutzah when he betroths her for the sake of regular kiddushin; however, if he betroths her for the sake of yibum, there will not be any validity to the yibum after chalitzah. (52b)

The Gemora cites another braisa: If one performed a chalitzah with his yevamah and then betrothed her; Rebbe said: If he betrothed her for kiddushin, she would require a get from him. If he betrothed her for the sake of yibum, she would not require a get. The Chachamim say: In either case, she will require a get.

Rav Yosef explains Rebbe’s opinion: It would be similar to a case where one would hoe in the property of a convert (that died, and his property is ownerless), but he thinks it is his own property; the halacha is that he does not acquire the property. (The yavam mistakenly thought that he can perform yibum after chalitzah; he does not acquire her as a wife.)

Abaye asked: The two cases cannot be compared; here, at least, he had intention to acquire her, but by the hoeing, he wasn’t thinking of acquiring the property at all (since he thought it was his). (52b)

[END]