{"id":10816,"date":"2007-06-07T21:37:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-07T21:37:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_yevamot_3642\/"},"modified":"2015-10-26T09:18:17","modified_gmt":"2015-10-26T14:18:17","slug":"masechet_yevamot_3642","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_yevamot_3642\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Yevamot 36a-42b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

This month\u2019s Steinsaltz Daf Yomi is sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Alan Harris, The Lewy Family Foundation, and Marilyn and Edward Kaplan<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Yevamot 36a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

All of our discussions in Masechet<\/a> Yevamot<\/a><\/em> open with the premise that the brother who passed away had no children; if he did have children, the mitzva<\/a><\/em> of yibum<\/a><\/em> would never come into effect. The first Mishnah<\/a> in the fourth perek<\/em>\u00a0(35b<\/a>) presents a situation where the widow is left pregnant. In such a case, we must wait and see whether the unborn child is viable. If she gives birth to a child who lives, there is no need for yibum<\/em>; if the child does not survive, then the normal rule of yibum<\/em> will apply.<\/p>\n

And what would have to be done in case one of the surviving brothers performs yibum<\/em> before the child is born? Here, too, the Mishnah distinguishes between a case where the unborn child survives and a case where he or she does not. If the child survives, the yibum<\/em> was a forbidden sexual act and the couple will need to bring sin-offerings (and, obviously, cannot continue living together). If the child does not survive, we learn retroactively that the act of yibum<\/em> was appropriate and the couple can continue their married life together.<\/p>\n

The Gemara<\/a> on our daf <\/em>quotes a baraita<\/a><\/em> that presents the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer<\/a>, who rules that in such a case the couple will need to get divorced.<\/p>\n

Although we do not follow the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer in this case, nevertheless his position deals with some of the basic issues of this topic, so the rishonim<\/a><\/em> examined his statement closely in order to see the ramifications of his position.<\/p>\n

Rashi<\/a> understands that Rabbi Eliezer’s intention is to teach that in such a case the couple will need to separate, and the means to do it will be through a normal writ of divorce, with no need of chalitzah<\/a><\/em>. Thus it appears that Rashi understands that the yibum<\/em> was successful, but the man is punished for performing yibum<\/em> at a time that the relationship may have been a forbidden one.<\/p>\n

The Rambam<\/a>, R”id<\/a> and others suggest that the requirement here is to have a get<\/em> in addition to the required chalitzah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Rashba<\/a> has an alternative reading of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement that does not include the requirement to divorce her, just a ruling that they cannot continue living together (yotzi<\/em> rather than yotzi b’get<\/em>), and he understands that Rabbi Eliezer requires only that chalitzah<\/em> be performed.<\/p>\n

\n

Yevamot 37a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

As we have learned on yesterday’s daf<\/em>, if a widow is pregnant when her husband passes away, there will be no mitzvah<\/a><\/em> of yibum<\/a><\/em> if she gives birth to a viable child. If the child dies, however, and the dead man had no other children, the normal rules of yibum<\/em> would apply.<\/p>\n

How long does a child have to live in order to be considered “viable”?<\/p>\n

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel teaches that once a child lives for 30 days he is considered a live birth. This teaching implies that a child who dies within the first 30 days after birth is, at best, a safek<\/em> \u2013 that his status is questionable.<\/p>\n

The Gemara<\/a> presents a case where a woman in this situation, i.e. whose child died before 30 days had passed, married someone from outside the family (that is to say, she assumed that she was not obligated in yibum<\/em>, since she had a child \u2013 albeit one who did not live for very long \u2013 with her first husband). In such a case, Ravina<\/a> quotes Rava<\/a> as ruling that she should have chalitzah<\/a><\/em> done if she married a regular person, but if she married a kohen<\/a><\/em> \u2013 who is not permitted to marry someone who had undergone chalitzah<\/em> \u2013 then chalitzah<\/em> should not be done, since it would destroy the woman’s marriage. Rav Mesharsheya, however, quotes Rava as saying that even if she married a kohen<\/em>, chalitzah<\/em> is necessary. Ravina tells Rav Mesharsheya that although Rava had said that in the morning, by the evening he had changed his mind. In response, Rav Mesharsheya says sarcastically “You say it is permitted? Then you can permit forbidden fats (heilev<\/em>) as well!”<\/p>\n

The Tosafot ha-Rosh<\/a> says that Rav Mesharsheya was arguing that permitting a woman who had had chalitzah<\/em> to a kohen<\/em> would lead to other mistaken rulings \u2013 like permitting a divorced woman to marry a kohen<\/em>, as well. The Arukh la-Ner<\/a><\/em> suggests that Rav Mesharsheya was hinting to a Gemara in Masechet<\/a> Hullin<\/a><\/em> (49a) that kohanim<\/em> were lenient and permitted certain questionable fats. Thus, Rav Mesharsheya is arguing that someone who is so desirous of helping out kohanim<\/em> should rule leniently on the subject of cheilev<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

Yevamot 38a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

When a couple gets married, a ketubah<\/em> \u2013 the agreement that is signed by witnesses delineating the obligations that the husband has towards his wife \u2013 is written. When the Mishnah<\/a> on our daf <\/em>refers to the ketubah<\/em>, it means specifically the monetary responsibilities that the husband has accepted in this relationship, and, in particular, the amount of money that he guaranteed to her in the event of divorce or death.<\/p>\n

It was traditional for the wife to also bring financial assets into the marriage, which were divided into two \u2013<\/p>\n