Yevamot 56 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh - May 2, 1 Iyar

Today’s day is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David’s father, Dr. Abraham Geffen on his yahrzeit.  Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein zt"l. Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding whether yibum that is performed in a weaker manner (for example, if it was unwitting) is fully effective or only partially (meaning she would not be allowed to eat truma). Is their debate in a case where she fell to yibum from an engagement or from marriage? Two different versions of the debate are brought and according to each version a statement of Shmuel is brought to show either that he is consistent or that he contradicts himself and a tannaitic source is brought to raise a difficulty against Shmuel. According to the first version, there is a resolution to the difficulty, but according to the second, there is no resolution. Since the braita brought as a difficulty against Shmuel discussed a case of a kohen who became deaf between engagement and marriage, another braita builds on that case – even though the wife cannot eat truma, if they have a child, then she can. What if the child dies? Rabbi Natan and the rabbis disagree about whether or not she can eat truma still. What is the reasoning behind each approach? Raba and Rav Yosef each explain it differently and Abaye raises questions against each of their positions. Rav Sheshet tries to prove from our Mishna as it says “and likewise… those who are disqualified to kohanim, and that is referring to “whether unwitting or intentional, forced or by her will” that a woman who was married to a Yisrael and was raped cannot marry a kohen. But in the end, this word “and likewise” is understood to be referring to something else in the Mishna and can’t be used to prove this. Raba said that if a kohen returns to his wife after she was raped and has relations with her, he receives lashes for having relations with a zona. Why does he not receive lashes for impurity? Or perhaps he does? A different version of Raba’s statement is brought – he is liable to impurity and not for a zona, as a woman who is raped is not considered a zona. If a daughter of a kohen is a divorcee and marries a kohen, or any other woman who is forbidden to marry a kohen, she can no longer eat truma. What if she was only betrothed to him? Or was betrothed and then he died or divorced her before they even got married?