The RBS edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically Daf Kuf Yud Bet Yebamot, has been dedicated and sponsored by our dear friend Mr. Isaac Jamal and his wife in honor of his family. May they be blessed with success and prosperity in all their endeavors, and may he be granted the merit to raise his children in the ways of the Torah. They should bring him much nachat, and he should experience health and happiness, finding favor and kindness in the eyes of both Hashem and humanity. May he and his entire family be blessed with abundance, amen.
Today's daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Ester, and may the spirit of Hashem rest upon him in the Garden of Eden, amen. Additionally, today's daf is being studied for the complete recovery of Sarah bat Rachel. Please, Hashem, heal her among all the sick of Your people, amen.
We begin today's daf on Kuf Yud Aleph amud sheni, and we are three, four, five lines from the bottom. We learned in our mishnah that a yevama comes along and claims, lo nivalti, asserting that the yavam did not have bi'ah with her within 30 days since he passed away. The mishnah states that we believe her claim, and we force him to perform a chalitzah. Why do we believe her? The Gemara will explain that within 30 days, a person can control himself and refrain from bi'ah. Therefore, her claim is valid; it is possible that he did not have bi'ah within that time frame, necessitating a chalitzah to sever the zika.
The Gemara asks, "Who is the authority that holds that up to 30 days a person can restrain himself from bi'ah?" Rabbi Yochanan states that it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. As it is taught, the claim of virginity lasts for thirty days according to Rabbi Meir. What is meant by the claim of virginity? It refers to when a person gets married, and they write a ketubah. If the girl is a betulah, a virgin, it is noted in the ketubah, and she is entitled to a certain amount of payment in the event of divorce or death. This amount is 200 zuz for a betulah. If the husband claims that she was not a betulah, he is stating that she loses her ketubah. A non-betulah is entitled to 100 zuz, but since this was a false claim where she asserted she was a betulah and was not, the sages imposed a penalty, denying her any payment.
There is a disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose regarding when the husband's claim is credible. The ruling is as follows: the claim of virginity lasts for thirty days according to Rabbi Meir. His assertion is that as long as he claims this within thirty days of marriage, we believe him, as we assume he did not have any bi'ah other than the first night. After thirty days, Rabbi Meir argues that we assume he had further bi'ah, and thus when he claims she is not a betulah, we suspect he is lying, as he likely had relations with her again.
Rabbi Yose states that if they were secluded after the marriage, we must assume that they had bi'ah during that seclusion. Therefore, he must come forward immediately. If he does not come right away, he loses the ability to claim that she is a betulah. If there was no seclusion, he can claim this even after many years, as we assume he did not have additional bi'ah in that case.
According to Rashi, the claim of virginity serves to deny her ketubah. As long as he claims he did not have bi'ah other than the first night, he can assert this for thirty days. However, should he claim this after thirty days, he is not believed, as we assume he had relations after that initial bi'ah. The Gemara continues, stating that Rabbi Yose only holds his stricter view regarding an engaged woman, as he is familiar with her and thus likely to have relations sooner. In contrast, with a yevamah, there is less familiarity, and he may indeed hold back for thirty days.
The mishnah further states that we force him to perform a chalitzah when she claims within thirty days that he did not have bi'ah. This is because we believe her due to the thirty-day rule. The Gemara questions why, if we believe her, we do not force him to perform yibum instead of only chalitzah. If there was no bi'ah, nothing started, so why not allow yibum? The Gemara answers that she is holding a get. The Gemara explains that the get she holds is for the zika, indicating that he did not wish to perform yibum with her, and thus a chalitzah is required.
The Gemara presents a challenge from a baraita: if a yevamah claims within thirty days that she was not had relations, whether he claims he did or did not, we force him to perform a chalitzah. After thirty days, we merely request him to do so. If she claims she had relations after thirty days, and he denies it, he must provide a get. This is because we believe her after thirty days, as a person cannot control himself and thus must have had bi'ah. Therefore, if there is a bi'ah, it is like a marriage, and only a get is needed.
However, if he claims he had relations after thirty days but she insists he did not, even if he later retracts, he still requires both a get and a chalitzah. The reasoning is that since she is claiming he did not have bi'ah, she is asserting that she is forbidden to him. To permit her, he must provide a chalitzah. The Gemara then questions the earlier statement regarding the need for a get. It suggests that we are indeed discussing a case where she is not holding a get, which leads to the conclusion that she must be requesting a chalitzah instead.
The Gemara continues to explore the implications of the baraita and how it connects with the earlier discussions. It concludes that in the case of the yevamah, the get is not a valid one, and thus a chalitzah is necessary. The Gemara examines the various scenarios of yibum and chalitzah across different cases, emphasizing the legal distinctions that arise from the relationships between the individuals involved.
Ultimately, the Gemara provides a thorough analysis of the legal frameworks governing these relationships, ensuring that the principles of Torah law are upheld while navigating the complexities of human interactions and familial obligations. The discourse serves not only as a legal exploration but also as a reflection on the moral responsibilities that accompany such laws.