Daf Yomi - Yevamos 96 - Highlights

FIVE SISTERS
The Mishna states: They told a married man, “Your wife has died,” and he went and married her paternal sister. Later, they told him, “She (the second wife) has died,” and he went and married her (the second wife) maternal sister. Later, they told him, “She (the third wife) has died,” and he went and married her (the third wife’s) paternal sister. Later, they told him, “She (the fourth wife) has died,” and he went and married her (the fourth wife’s) maternal sister. He found out that in fact, none of them had died. The halacha is that he is permitted to remain married to the first, third and fifth wives. (Since he is legally married to the first wife, that renders his marriage to the second wife (her paternal sister) null and void. He is thus legally married to the third wife because she is not related at all to the first wife. Now that he is legally married to the third wife, that renders his marriage to the fourth wife (her paternal sister) null and void. He is thus legally married to the fifth wife because she is not related at all to the first or the third wives.) If he would subsequently die childless, a yibum or chalitzah with one of these wives will release the others from any yibum or chalitzah obligations. He is forbidden to the second and the fourth wives, and a yibum or chalitzah with one of them will not release the others from a yibum or chalitzah obligation.

The Mishna continues: If the husband cohabited with the second wife after the death of the first one (she indeed did die), he is permitted to remain married to the second and fourth wives. (Since he is legally married to the second wife, that renders his marriage to the third wife (her maternal sister) null and void. He is thus legally married to the fourth wife because she is not related at all to the second wife. Now that he is legally married to the fourth wife, that renders his marriage to the fifth wife (her maternal sister) null and void.) If he would subsequently die childless, a yibum or chalitzah with one of these wives will release the other from any yibum or chalitzah obligations. He is forbidden to the first, third and fifth wives, and a yibum or chalitzah with one of them will not release the others from a yibum or chalitzah obligation.

The Mishna concludes: A nine year old yavam can render the brothers unfit for yibum if he does so first, and his adult brothers can render him unfit if they perform yibum. The difference between the minor and his adult brothers is that he can render them unfit “at first,” while they can do so “at first and at the end.” What is the case? If the nine year old cohabits with the yevamah, he renders his brothers unfit to perform yibum. However, if any of the adult brothers cohabit with the yevamah, or they performed a ma’amar, gave her a letter of divorce, or submitted to chalitzah, they render their minor brother unfit to perform yibum. (96a)

GEMORA
The Gemora asks: How could the (the end of the first case of the) Mishna state the second wife alone is considered married to the husband, if the first wife was found to be dead only after he married all of the women?

Rav Sheishes answers that the Mishna means that it was later determined that the second wife married her husband after the first had definitely already passed away. The kiddushin was therefore valid, and she becomes his true wife. (96a)

STATUS OF A NINE-YEAR OLD
The Mishna stated that a nine-year old only renders his brothers unfit for yibum if he is the first one to perform any action of yibum. However, Rav Zevid bar Rav Oshaya quoted a braisa stating that if an adult brother did ma’amar to a yevamah, and then his nine-year old brother cohabited with her, the nine-year old indeed renders the older brother unfit for yibum. How can we reconcile this with our Mishna?

The Gemora answers that when the Mishna said that a nine-year old can only render his brothers unfit if he is the first one, it was talking about ma’amar, not actual yibum.

The Gemora asks, this seems difficult to reconcile with a different braisa that seems to make the same statement as our Mishna and clearly mentions a case of actual yibum.

The Gemora answers that this second braisa is missing words, and should actually read that this is only in case of ma’amar, not actual yibum.

The Gemora continues that there is another braisa which seems to say that a nine-year old’s ma’amar is insignificant. The braisa states that such a child only renders his brothers unfit to perform yibum through actual relations, while his brothers can do this through relations, ma’amar, get, and chalitzah. The Gemora answers that this braisa did not discuss the ma’amar of a nine-year old because, as stated above, his ma’amar is only effective if his brothers have not yet done anything (“at first, not at the end”). (96a)


GET OF A NINE-YEAR OLD
TO A YEVAMAH
Rav Yehudah stated in the name of Shmuel that a nine-year old can also make his brothers unfit to do Yibum by giving the Yevamah a Get. Rav Tachlifa Bar Avimi states that he only has Ma’amar. Rabbi Meir states in a Braisa that he has both Ma’amar and Get.

The Gemora asks, does Rabbi Meir indeed hold that his Get is effective?

The Gemora quotes a Braisa which states that a nine-year old’s relations (regarding Yibum) is like the Ma’amar done by an adult. Rabbi Meir argues that his Chalitzah is like the Get of an adult. Rabbi Meir’s statement in this Braisa implies that his Get is not effective, as even his Chalitzah is only like the Get of an adult. If his Get was effective, Rabbi Meir should say that (regarding Yibum) his Chalitzah is like his Get!

Rav Huna, the son of Rabbi Yehoshua, answers that Rabbi Meir indeed holds that his Get is effective, but not as effective a regular Get, as opposed to his Chalitzah which is indeed as effective as a regular Get.

What is the difference between the Chalitzah and Get of a nine-year old?

The Gemora explains the difference both according to the opinion of Raban Gamliel and the Rabanan (see Mishna on 50a-b at length). Raban Gamliel who holds that there is no validity in a Get after one brother has already given a Get to the Yevamah, only holds this when both brothers are either adults or minors. However, if an adult brother would give a Get after a younger brother, it would be effective. The Rabanan who hold that there is a purpose in giving another Get would similarly hold this when both people involved were adults or minors. However, the Get of a nine-year old after an adult would be ineffective. (96a)

MISHNA
The Mishna states that if a nine-year old brother has relations with a Yevamah, and then his nine-year old brother later has relations with her, the first brother becomes unfit for Yibum due to the actions of his brother. The Tanna Kamma holds that the relations of a minor are akin to Ma’amar, and therefore both have validity and require a Get (see Rashi). Rabbi Shimon argues that he does not become unfit. The Tanna Kamma also states that if a nine-year old had relations with one of his dead brother’s widows, and then proceeded to have relations with her co-wife, they both become unfit for Yibum. Rabbi Shimon argues that he does not become unfit. (96b)

RABBI SHIMON’S CLAIM
The Braisa states that Rabbi Shimon asked the Rabanan: “If the first act of Yibum was valid, this means the second act was invalid. If the first act was invalid, the second act should likewise be invalid!” (96b)

UNLIKE BEN AZAI
Our Mishna, the Gemora states, is unlike the opinion of Ben Azai. This is because the Tanna Kamma of our Mishna understands that two Ma’amar’s are valid (see italics above), both in a case of two Yavam’s and one Yevamah (the first case of our Mishna), and two potential Yevamos with one Yavam who does Ma’amar to both of them (second case of our Mishna). Ben Azai argues that when there is only one Yavam, Ma’amar is only effective one time to one Yevamah, not to the second potential Yevamah. (96b)

MISHNA
If a nine-year old has relations with his Yevamah and dies, his Yevamah can only receive Chalitzah, not Yibum, from the other brothers. If he would have married a regular woman, she does not fall to Yibum (as his Kidushin is essentially invalid, see Rashi). If he both had relations with a Yevamah and then married another unrelated woman after he became an adult, the Yevamah only requires Chalitzah if he did not have relations with her after he became an adult, while his regular wife can have either Yibum or Chalitzah. Rabbi Shimon argues that the brothers can do Yibum to either one, and give the other one Chalitzah. The Mishna concludes that these Halachos not only apply to a nine-year old, but also to a twenty-year man who has not yet developed two hairs which qualify him as a Halachic adult. (96b)

ZIKAH OF TWO YEVAMOS
Rava stated that our Mishna proves that when the Rabanan decreed that in a case where there are two yevamos only Chalitzah should be done and not Yibum, it is not only in case where there are two proper co-wives. [The allowance of Yibum to more than one woman would cause people to think that if Yibum can be done in this special case (such as the case of the Mishna on 31b), then many widows of one husband may be taken simultaneously through Yibum (see Rashi)]. This is apparent from the fact that our Mishna discusses one regular wife and one woman who was not really married to this man at all, and even so the Mishna codifies that only Chalitzah can be done to her and not Yibum (see Ritva).

The Gemora quotes a Braisa that similarly states that if a Shoteh (fool) or minor marry, their widows are exempt from Chalitzah and Yibum.

The Gemora asks, why isn’t the relations that the husband had with the Yevamah when he was a minor sufficient to cause the husband’s real wife to not be able to have Yibum (like a regular case of Zikah of two yevamos, as explained above)? His relations when he was a minor should be akin to the Ma’amar of an adult, which can cause Zikah from two yevamos and therefore not provide an option for Yibum?

The Gemora states that Rav states that the premise of the question is false, as a minor’s relations are not akin to the Ma’amar of an adult. However, Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan say that they are. How would they answer this question?

The Gemora answers that they understand that there is an argument between our Mishna and the Mishna earlier (31b). Indeed, the author of the Mishna earlier (31b) would say that the regular wife cannot have Yibum due to the aforementioned decree regarding two Zikos, even when this involves a minor. The only reason he did not discuss a minor in the Mishna earlier is because the author of the Mishna did not want to change the types of cases that were discussing adults, and not minors. The author of our Mishna argues that no such decree exists, and therefore allows the brothers to perform Yibum on the regular wife in our Mishna. He similarly did not discuss the decree in regards to adults, as he was not dealing with cases of adults. (96b)

RABBI YOCHANAN’S ANGER WITH RABBI ELOZAR
Rabbi Elozar went and related this discussion in this Beis Medrash, but did not relate the discussion in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. When Rabbi Yochanan heard about this omission, he was perturbed. Rabbi Ami and Rav Asi went up to Rabbi Yochanan and said: “Did it not happen, once in the Beis Medrash of Teveryah, that there was a discussion between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosi regarding the door lock which had a thick head (and could be used for grinding things, see Rashi), and they debated the matter with such intensity that they tore a Sefer Torah?”

The Gemora explains that they certainly did not intentionally tear a Sefer Torah. Rather, the Sefer Torah divided. Rabbi Yosi Ben Kisma was present at the time, and he declared that he would be astonished if as a result of this discussion which became inappropriate, the shul would not turn into a house of idol worship! Indeed, the Gemora states, the shul eventually became a house of idol worship. [Rabbi Ami and Rav Asi were apparently trying to tell Rabbi Yochanan not to be so particular with Rabbi Elozar, because such behavior could lead to disastrous consequences.]

Rav Yakov Bar Idi came him, and quoted the Pasuk “Like Hashem commanded his servant Moshe, so commanded Moshe to Yehoshua, and so did Yehoshua do. He did not remove anything from that which Hashem commanded.” He asked Rabbi Yochanan, do you think that every time Yehoshua quoted a Halachah he said it in the name of Moshe? Yehoshua just said over Halachos, and everyone knew they were from Moshe! Similarly, everyone knows that Rabbi Elozar is your student, and whatever he says comes from you! After hearing this, Rabbi Yochanan turned to his other students and said “Why don’t you know how to make peace like the son of Idi, our friend?”

Why was Rabbi Yochanan so upset in the first place? Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav, what is the meaning of the Pasuk “I will dwell in your tent in many worlds?” Is it possible for someone to dwell in a tent in both worlds? It means that David stated to Hashem, “Master of the Universe, it should be Your will that they should say a statement in my name in this world (as well as my being in the next world).” (96b – 97a)

[END]