ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 51
YEVAMOS 46-55 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) According to Rava, Raban Gamliel's reason (for holding 'Ein Get Achar
Get, ve'Ein Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar') is because he is in doubt whether Get is
Docheh or not and whether Ma'amar is Koneh or not. What he means is - if
they *are Koneh*, then the first one has already done its job and there is
no room for the second one to take effect; and if they are *not*, then there
is nothing to talk about (like we explained in the Mishnah).
Abaye attributes Raban Gamliel's opinion (that there is Get after Ma'amar
and Bi'ah, and Ma'amar after Get and Bi'ah) to the fact that, on the one
hand, Bi'ah Pesulah is better than Ma'amar and on the other, Ma'amar is
better than Bi'ah Pesulah. When he says that ...
(b) In a Beraisa, Raban Gamliel concedes that 'Yesh Achar Ma'amar u'Ma'amar
Achar Get'. Similarly, in the case of Get after Ma'amar and Bi'ah, and
Ma'amar after Get and Bi'ah (both with regard to *three* Yevamos) - he holds
'Yesh Get Achar Bi'ah u'Ma'amar', and 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Bi'ah ve'Get'.
(c) In the latter two cases, asks Abaye, if, as Rava explains, Raban Gamliel
is not sure whether Bi'ah is Docheh and Bi'ah is Koneh, why should the Get
after Ma'amar and Bi'ah, and the Ma'amar after the Get and Bi'ah, be valid?
In the former case, either the first Ma'amar is Koneh, or if it is not, then
the Bi'ah is? And the same in the latter case: either the first Get is
Docheh, or, if it is not, then the Bi'ah is Koneh?
(d) Therefore Abaye explains ...
1. ... that, according to Raban Gamliel - Get is definitely partially Docheh
and Ma'amar, partially Koneh. However, the aspect of Zikah that a *Get* is
Docheh, is not the same aspect as that which *Ma'amar* is Koneh.
Consequently, whereas he holds 'Ein Get Achar Get' (because the second Get
is coming to be Docheh the same aspect as the first one), he also holds
'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Get' (and the same applies to Get Achar Ma'amar).
2. ... that the Rabbanan, who hold 'Yesh Get Achar Get ve'Yesh Ma'amar Achar
Ma'amar' - hold that *each* Yavam acquires a part of *each* Yevamah to be
Docheh (with a Get), and a part to be Koneh (with Ma'amar). Consequently,
'Yesh Get Achar Get' and 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar'.
1. ... Bi'ah Pesulah is better than Ma'amar, he means - that Bi'ah after
Ma'amar is effective, whereas Ma'amar after Ma'amar is not.
2. ... Ma'amar is better than Bi'ah Pesulah, he means - that Bi'ah after Get
does not prevent Ma'amar from taking effect after it (in the case of a third
Yevamah), whereas Ma'amar after Get acquires everything that the Get left
over, thereby preventing Ma'amar from taking effect after it.
(a) According to Raban Gamliel (who holds 'Ein Get Achar Get'), if someone
gives two Gitin to two Yevamos, he might prefer to perform Chalitzah with
the second one - because, seeing as her Zikah has *not been weakened* by a
Get, it is a more perfect Chalitzah than the first one, which *has*.
(b) Nevertheless, the Beraisa says that he should perform Chalitzah with the
*first* Yevamah - because her relatives are anyway forbidden to him because
of the Get, so why perform Chalitzah with the second one, causing her
relatives to become forbidden, too.
(c) According to the Chachamim - the relatives of the second Yevamah are
forbidden to him anyway (since they hold 'Yesh Get Achar Get'), so it makes
no difference with which Yevamah he performs Chalitzah.
(d) In the equivalent case of two Yevamin and one Yevamah (if each one gave
the Yevamah a Get) - Raban Gamliel holds that the second Yavam is permitted
to marry the Yevamah's relatives, whereas according to the Rabbanan, they
are forbidden to him.
(a) Shmuel says 'Chalatz le'Ba'alas ha'Get, Lo Nifterah Tzarah' - because,
in his opinion, the Zikah has been weakened by the Get, and as a result, the
Chalitzah that is performed with her is not sufficiently strong to remove
the full Zikah of the Tzarah.
(b) We ask on Shmuel from Raban Gamliel in the Beraisa, who says 'Choletz
la'Rishonah' (the Ba'alas ha'Get, whose Chalitzah then exempts the Tzarah
who did not receive a [valid] Get). We cannot however, ask from the
Chachamim, who also say 've'Choletz le'Achas Meihen' - because, according to
them, 'Yesh Get Achar Get', in which case, the Zikos of both women have been
(c) Shmuel resolves this Kashya from Raban Gamliel - by establishing that
Raban Gamliel holds 'Ein Zikah', which is why the bond between the Yavam and
the Yevamah is easily broken (even through a Chalitzah with a Ba'alas Get;
whereas *he* holds 'Yesh Zikah', and Zikah requires a strong Chalitzah to
(a) We suggest that the Rabbanan hold 'Yesh Zikah' - because we just
concluded that Raban Gamliel holds 'Ein Zikah'.
(b) Nevertheless, the Tana tells us that if two Yevamin gave a Get to one
Yevamah, only one Chalitzah is required. This poses a Kashya on Rabah bar
Rav Huna Amar Rav - who says that when Chalitzah Pesulah is required, then
all the brothers need to perform it.
(c) But in our case too, seeing as the Chalitzah follows a Get, it is a
Chalitzah, and, if the Chachamim hold 'Yesh Zikah' then, according to his
opinion, both Yevamin ought to perform Chalitzah, not just one of them?
(d) He answers that, in fact - the Rabbanan too, hold 'Ein Zikah' (whereas
he only says that all the brothers require Chalitzah because he holds like
those Tana'im who say 'Yesh Zikah'), and the Rabbanan's Machlokes is
confined to 'Get Achar Get' and 'Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar'.
(a) According to Raban Gamliel, if the Yavam made Ma'amar first with one
Yevamah, then with the other, the first one requires a Get and Chalitzah -
not Yibum, because we are afraid that he may then go on to perform Yibum
with the second one.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that Raban Gamliel, Beis Shamai, Rebbi Shimon,
ben Azai and Rebbi Nechemyah all agree - that Ma'amar is largely Koneh.
(c) We see in our Sugya, that Raban Gamliel holds that Ma'amar is Koneh -
from the fact that he holds 'Ein Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar'.
(a) Beis Shamai say that if one of two brothers who were married to two
sisters dies, and the third brother has already made Ma'amar with the
Yevamah when the second brother dies - he may perform Yibum with her, and
the second Yevamah is exempt from Yibum - a proof that he too, holds that
Ma'amar is Koneh (Otherwise the first Yevamah should be forbidden because of
(b) Chazal gave the Bi'ah of a Katan over nine, the status of Ma'amar.
(c) When the Chachamim ruled that a Yavam Katan who is over nine, who
performs Yibum with his Yevamah, after his brother (also a Katan over nine)
has already done so, forbids her on his brother - Rebbi Shimon remarked that
if the Bi'ah of the first brother *is a Bi'ah*, then that of the second is
not, and if it is *not*, then neither is the Bi'ah of the second one.
(d) When Rebbi Shimon remarked that if the Bi'ah of the first brother is a
Bi'ah, then that of the second is not - he meant that it is considered a
Ma'amar (because, as we just explained, that is what Chazal consider the
Bi'ah of a Katan to be). We see that, in his opinion, Ma'amar is Koneh.
(a) ben Azai makes a distinction between Ma'amar after Ma'amar by two
Yevamin and one Yevamah, and Ma'amar after Ma'amar by two Yevamos and one
Yavam. In the former case, he holds 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar (because
Chazal instituted a separate Ma'amar by each Yavam, but not by each Yevamah,
which is why), by two Yevamos and one Yavam, he holds 'Ein Ma'amar Achar
Ma'amar'. From the former case we see - that he too, holds that Ma'amar is
(b) We prove from Rebbi Nechemyah, who says in our Mishnah that there is
nothing after Bi'ah, even if it comes in the middle or at the end - because
one of the cases in the Mishnah (Bi'ah Achar Get), is in fact, a Bi'ah
Pesulah, which Chazal gave the Din of Ma'amar - that he too, clearly holds
Ma'amar is Koneh.