ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 110
(a) According to Rav, if a Ketanah does not make Miy'un but, after
growing-up with her husband, she marries someone else, she does not require
a get from the second husband - according to Shmuel, she does.
(b) According to Rav's interpretation of Raban Gamliel (that it is only
after she becomes a Gedolah and performs Bi'ah, that the Kidushin of a
Ketanah becomes established), this dispute must be speaking in a case when
the first husband performed Bi'ah with her after she grew-up. The problem
with this lies, not in Rav - but in Shmuel. How can Shmuel say that the
second man requires a Get, in spite of the first husband having made Bi'ah
with her after she grew-up?
(c) Shmuel's reason is - because when a man makes Bi'ah, he says, it is with
the first Kidushin in mind (and not to create a new one).
(a) According to Rav (in K'suvos), if a man betroths a woman on condition
that she did *not make any Nedarim*, and after marrying her S'tam (without
any mention of the previous condition), he discovers that she *did*, she
requires a Get - because when he performs Bi'ah after the Chupah, he forgoes
all previous conditions and makes it in the form of a new Kidushin.
(b) According to Shmuel, she does not require a Get from him - because when
he makes Bi'ah, it is having in mind the first Kidushin.
(c) Rav and Shmuel seem to argue over the same issue twice. Having taught us
1. ... *here* (by 'Ketanah she'Lo Mi'anah ... ') that the Bi'ah is
considered a new Kidushin, Rav nevertheless found it necessary to repeat it
*there* (in the case of 'T'nai') - because, since a condition was made and
not met, we would have otherwise thought that Rav agrees with Shmuel in that
case (the Kidushin should become nullified and no Get should be required).
2. ... *there* Kol ha'Bo'el al-Da'as Kidushin ha'Rishonim Hu Bo'el, Shmuel
nevertheless found it necessary to repeat it *here* - because we would
otherwise have thought that Shmuel's ruling is confined to the case there,
where a condition was made and not met (as we just explained in Rav), but in
our case, perhaps he would concede to Rav that the Bi'ah creates a new
(a) That Ketanah in Neresh who was betrothed to a man by her mother and
brothers - and whose husband had already placed her under the Chupah (after
she grew-up), when someone else came and abducted her Rav B'runa and Rav
Chananel, disciples of Rav), ruled there - that she did not require a Get
from the second man..
(b) 've'Osvei a'Bei Kursaya' means - that he placed her under the Chupah,
which we assume to have taken place before the Bi'ah. In that case, the
ruling of Rav's Talmidim, who seemed to consider the Chupah a fresh Kidushin
even when there was no Bi'ah (like the first side of Rebbi Elazar's
She'eilah in Raban Gamliel), whereas Rav himself requires specifically Bi'ah
in order to become betrothed (and not just Chupah) as we saw earlier.
(c) Rav Papa reconciles this ruling of Rav B'runa and Rav Chananel, Rav's
disciples, with Rav himself - by informing us that the Minhag in Neresh was
to make Bi'ah before the Chupah. Consequently, when her husband placed his
wife under the Chupah, he had already made Bi'ah with her, and that is why
he acquired her.
(d) Rav Ashi explains their ruling even according to the regular Minhag for
Chupah to precede Bi'ah. He ascribes their reason for their ruling - to the
fact that the abductor behaved unconventionally, so, measure for measure,
they issued him with an unconventional ruling.
(a) According to Rav Ashi's explanation, if the second man betrothed her
with money, what Chazal did was to use their power of 'Hefker Beis-Din
Hefker' to nullify his Kidushin by declaring the money that he gave her
Hefker. Ravina asked Rav Ashi how they could possibly have nullified his
Kidushin if he betrothed her with Bi'ah, to which he replied - that they
simply declared his Bi'ah an immoral act.
(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah (who
holds 'Melamdin ha'Ketanah la'Ma'ein ... ').
(a) If a man who is married to two Yesomos who are either both Ketanos or
both Charashos, dies, the Bi'ah or Chalitzah of one of them exempts the
other. If one of them is ...
1. ... a Ketanah and the other, a Chareshes - the Bi'ah of one of them does
not exempt the other (the Sugya later will discuss what the Yavam is
obligated to do).
(b) We learned above (in Perek Mitzvas Chalitzah) that the Chalitzah of a
Cheresh and of a Chareshes is not valid. Rav Gidal Amar Rav therefore
restricts any mention of Chareshes in our Mishnah to Bi'ah (but not to
Chalitzah). According to Rabah however - our Mishnah (which permits
Chalitzah by a Chareshes) speaks about a woman who was born a Chareshes,
whereas the Mishnah in Mitzvas Chalitzah speaks about a woman who only
became a Chareshes later.
2. ... a normal woman, and the other, a Chareshes, or if one of them is a
Gedolah and the other, a Ketanah - the Bi'ah of the former exempts the
latter, but not vice-versa.
(c) According to Rabah, the Chalitzah of a Chareshes who was ...
1. ... originally a Pikachas, is invalid - because she cannot read the
2. ... born a Chareshes is valid - because in the same way as her husband
originally married her with hints (seeing as she can neither speak nor
hear), so too, does she leave the Yavamah's jurisdiction with hints.
(a) The Mishnah in Cheresh cites a case of two brothers, one, a Pikei'ach
who is married to a Pikachas; the other, a Cheresh, who is married to a
Chareshes. Should his brother die, and he does not wish to live with his
1. ... the Pikei'ach will have to perform Yibum and then to give her a Get
(since he cannot perform Chalitzah).
(b) According to Rabah - the Tana must be talking about a Cheresh who was
born a Pikachas; otherwise, why should he not be permitted to perform
2. ... the Cheresh has no option but to perform Yibum with her and to retain
her (seeing as he can neither perform Chalitzah nor may he divorce her(since
he did not marry her [with signs]).
(a) In a second case in the Mishnah in Cheresh, the Tana speaks about two
Pikchim who are married to a Chareshes and a Pikachas. Here too, the
Pikei'ach has no choice should his brother die. If he does not wish to live
with his Yevamah, he has to perform Yibum with her and then give her a Get.
Should the brother of the *Pikei'ach* who is married to the Chareshes, die,
and *he* wants to perform either Yibum or Chalitzah - he may do so.
(b) We try to prove from the contention, just like the Yavam was a Pikei'ach
from birth, so too, was the Yevamah (Chareshes) - that even a born Cheresh
is forbidden to perform Chalitzah (a Kashya against Rabah).
(c) We refute this proof - by establishing the Chareshes as one who was
previously a Pikachas (despite the fact that the Cheresh is a born Cheresh).
(a) The Tana says there in a case when two brothers (a Pikei'ach and a
Cheresh) married two sisters (a Pikachas and a Chareshes), that if ...
1. ... the Cheresh married to the Chareshes, dies - his wife goes out
because of Achos Ishto.
(b) This Mishnah cannot be speaking about a man who became a Cheresh only
after he was born - because then he would not have able to divorce his wife.
2. ... the Pikei'ach married to the Pikachas, dies - the Cheresh must
divorce his wife (because of the Zikah of the Yevamah) and the Yevamah
remains forbidden le'Shuk forever (because the Yavam can perform neither
Yibum [seeing as the Yevamah is Achos Gerushaso] nor Chalitzah [since he is
(c) We then go on to compare the sisters to the brothers, and the previous
case (where the women were not sisters) to this case, to say that all the
cases speak when they were born Charashim, leaving us with a Kashya on
Rabah. We cannot ask on Rabah directly from the case of when the Pikei'ach
married to the Pikachas dies, from the fact that the born Cheresh cannot
perform Chalitzah - because anyway he would have been forbidden to perform
Chalitzah with her, seeing as she had been married to a Pikei'ach, and the
S'vara 'as she came in so she goes out' would not have applied.
(a) Despite the fact that a man can divorce his wife even against her will,
he cannot divorce a wife who is a Shotah - because Chazal, in order to
protect her, decreed that a Shotah cannot be divorced.
(b) This decree does not extend to a wife who became a Chareshes - because
she is able to look after herself.
(a) Rav Yosef rejects the Kashya on Rabah from the comparison of the sisters
to the brothers, and the previous case (where the women were not sisters) to
the sisters, proving that they all speak when they were born Charashim -
because, he says, one could answer that even though the case of the sisters
speaks when they were born Charashos, the case of the Nochri'os speaks when
they only became Charashos afterwards.
(b) He asks however, from an earlier section of that Mishnah. The Tana says
there that ...
1. ... when two brothers Charashim married two sisters, irrespective of what
the women were - they are Patur from Chalitzah and Yibum (because, seeing as
their Zikos are equal [because they were both acquired through hints and are
divorced through hints], each one is Achos Ishto, and is Patur from
Chalitzah and from Yibum).
(c) In the case of the sisters, the same will apply in the reverse case (if
the sisters were both Charashos and the men were any combination of
Pikei'ach and Cheresh) - each one is Achos Ishto, and is Patur from
Chalitzah and from Yibum.
2. ... when two brothers Charashim married two Nochri'os, irrespective of
what the women were - they perform Yibum, and should they not wish to live
with them, they may divorce them.
(d) From this Mishnah, Rav Yosef finally refutes Rabah's distinction between
a born Cheresh and one who became a Cheresh (seeing as our Mishnah forbids
them to perform Chalitzah, in spite of the fact that they were born
Charashim). Rav Yosef knows that the Tana is speaking about men and women
who were born Charashim - because otherwise, in the case of the Nochri'os,
how would the Charashim be permitted to divorce their wives.
(a) Rav Nachman found Rav Ada bar Ahavah and Rav Chana his son-in-law
gathering Talmidim in the public-square of Pumbedisa. 'ka'Makvu Akvasa'
might also mean 'asking Kashyos'.
(b) They established our Mishnah (which rules that the Bi'ah of a Ketanah
and a Chareshes do not exempt each other), speaks when their deceased
husband was a Pikei'ach. The Tana's S'vara is - that we do not know which
wife the deceased husband preferred (on principle): the Ketanah, because she
is destined to become a Gedolah, or the Chareshes, because she is a Gedolah
and ready for Bi'ah (to have children).
(c) If he was a Cheresh however, he would certainly prefer the Chareshes,
because she is one of a kind with him, in which case, her Bi'ah would exempt
that of the Ketanah.
(a) Rav Nachman disagrees with Rav Ada bar Ahavah and Rav Chana his
son-in-law. In his opinion, our Tana (who rules that the Bi'ah of a Ketanah
and a Chareshes do not exempt each other) even speaks when their deceased
husband was a Cheresh.
(b) We ask what they would then have to do. They cannot both perform
Chalitzah - because, as we have seen throughout the Sugya, a Cheresh and a
Chareshes cannot perform Chalitzah.
(c) Neither can he perform Bi'ah with the Chareshes and Chalitzah with the
Ketanah when she grows-up - because, seeing as the Bi'ah with the Chareshes
is not completely Koneh (as we shall soon see), part of the Zikah still
remains, and, when he later performs Chalitzah with the Tzarah, the
Chareshes becomes forbidden because of 'Keivan she'Lo Banah ... '.
(d) Rav Chisda Amar Rav therefore rules that he should - perform Yibum with
the Chareshes and give her a Get, and perform Chalitzah with the Ketanah
when she grows-up.
(a) Rav Chisda extrapolates from Rav's ruling that, in his opinion, the
Kinyan on a Chareshes is a partial one, whereas the Kinyan on a Ketanah is a
Safek; either he acquires her completely or not at all. He could not
possibly hold ...
1. ... that both are a partial Kinyan - because then, the Bi'ah of one would
exempt the other; whereas the Tana says that it doesn't.
(b) Despite the fact that the Ketanah is a Safek, he is not able to perform
Yibum with her immediately (if she is a Yevamah, he acquires her now, and if
she is not, he will acquire her when she grows-up) - because then, what will
happen to the Chareshes, with whom he will be able to perform neither Yibum
2. ... that both are a Safek - because then, if the Yavam made Bi'ah first
with one of them and then with the other, he ought to be able to remain with
the first one (because mi'Mah Nafshach: if one acquires them, then she is
his Yevamah, and if not, his wife); whereas the Seifa of the Mishnah says
that the Bi'ah of the second one renders the first one Pasul.
3. ... the other way round (that the Kinyan on a Chareshes is a Safek;
whether he acquires her completely or not at all, whereas the Kinyan on a
Ketanah is a partial one) - because if that were so, why is the Yavam
obligated to divorce the Chareshes? If his brother acquired her, then she is
his Yevamah (whom he acquired first), and if he did not acquire her, then
she is not a Tzarah of the Chareshes but a stranger, in which case, there is
no reason why he should not marry her.
(c) The Tana of our Mishnah states that if he made Bi'ah, first with the
Ketanah, then with the Chareshes, he invalidates the Ketanah. He really
should be permitted to retain her (because, seeing as he made Yibum with her
first, she is either his Yevamah, [in which case his Yibum acquired her], or
a stranger [in which case she is now his wife]). Chazal however - issued a
decree, in case he performs Yibum with the Chareshes first.