Previous daf

1)

(a) If not for "Alehah", we would include Yibum by Achos Ishto and all the Arayos from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Eishes Achiv (in spite of the fact that there are *two* Isurim there against the *one* of Eishes Achiv who is not simultaneously a second Ervah), because of 'Ho'il ve'Ishteri Ishteri'. His brother would have had to marry first (so that the Isur of Eishes Achiv came into effect before that of Achos Ishto.

(b) Even assuming that his brother married first, we would only apply 'Ho'il ve'Ishteri Ishteri' - if his brother died before he married the Yevamah's sister (so that she became permitted to him before the Isur of Achos Ishto came into effect.

(c) If he married her before his brother died - we would compare it to a case of where he saw Keri on the night preceding the eighth day of his Tzara'as (before he was fit to bring his Korbanos), in which case Ula (who says 'Ho'il ve'Ishteri, Ishteri') would agree that, on the next day, he would not be permitted to enter the Sha'ar Nikanor and place his hands inside the Azarah.

(a) Alternatively, we require "Alehah" to preclude Hekeisha de'Rebbi Yonah (some say de'Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua) - the Pasuk "Ki Kol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'To'eivos ha'Eileh, ve'Nichreseah", from which he learns that all the Arayos are Chayav for performing Ha'ara'ah (an incomplete Bi'ah which will be discussed later in the Masechta) from Achoso, by whom the Torah writes it explicitly. Similarly here, we would have compared all the Arayos to Eishes Achiv regarding Yibum, if not for "Alehah".

(b) The fact that by all the other Arayos one transgresses *two* La'avin, whereas by Eishes Achiv, one transgresses only *one* - is not a problem, because of the principle 'Ein Mashivin al ha'Hekesh.

(c) We compare all the Arayos to Achos Ishto (to forbid Yibum - rather than to Eishes Achiv, to permit it), for one of two reasons, either because whenever we have such an option, we always compare le'Chumra - or because by all the other Arayos, like Achos Ishto, there are *two* La'avin, whereas by Eishes Achiv, there is only *one*.

(a) According to Rava, we do not need "Alehah" to preclude Achos Ishto and the other Arayos from Yibum - because he maintains (what we have been toying with throughout the Sugya) that an Asei cannot override a La'av which carries with it Kareis.

(b) We need "Alehah" - to preclude Tzaros Ervah from Yibum.

(c) Rava explains the words of ...

1. ... the Tana 'Ein Li Ela Hi' and 'Ein Li Ela Hein' - that 'Hi' and 'Hein' are not intrinsic Chidushim, but only an introduction to the Tzaros, which he then proceeds to learn.
2. ... Rebbi in another Beraisa, who requires a Pasuk 'Le'esor Tzaros *va*'Arayos' - by amending this to Le'esor Tzaros *shel* Arayos'.

(d) But Rebbi himself quotes *two* Pesukim! According to Rava - he learns from ...

1. ... "u'Lekachah" - the Isur of Tzaros Ervah.
2. ... "ve'Yibmah" - that the Isur of Tzaras Ervah only applies by the Mitzvah of Yibum, but not if the Ervah marries someone other than his brother.

(a) Rav Ashi proves from our Mishnah, which says 'Chameish-Esrei Nashim Potros Tzaroseihen', but does not say 'Peturos' - that the Tana takes for granted that Arayos are not included in the Mitzvah of Yibum (like Rava).

(b) The problem with Rava's distinction between Ervah and Tzaras Ervah is - that bearing in mind that the Torah writes "li'Tz'ror" (comparing the Tzaras Ervah to the Ervah herself), why should we need a Pasuk ("Alehah") to preclude Tzaras Ervah from Yibum any more than for the Ervah.

(c) Rav Acha bar Bibi subsequently explains - that Rava learns from "Alehah" that the Torah confines the Isur of Tzaras Ervah to a case of Yibum (be'Makom 'Alehah'), but not when the Ervah married someone other his brother.

5)

(a) We initially resolve Rami bar Chama's query as to why Rava does not learn from "Alehah" that when there is no Mitzvah of Yibum, the Ervah herself should be permitted - by learning a 'Kal va'Chomer' to counter it: If be'Makom Mitzvah she is forbidden, how much more so when it is not a Makom Mitzvah?

(b) The snag with this answer - is from Tzaras Ervah, who is forbidden when it *is* a Makom Yibum, but permitted when it is *not*.

(c) We cannot learn that Achos Ishto (and the other Arayos) are forbidden even when there is no Mitzvah of Yibum from "be'Chayehah" because we need "be'Chayehah" to teach us that one's wife's sister is permitted after the death of his wife.

(d) Had the Torah written only "ve'Ishah el Achosah" - we would have permitted her even after one had divorced one's wife (even though she is still alive).

(a) Rav Huna bar Tachlifa Amar Rava finally learns that the Arayos are forbidden when there is no Mitzvah of Yibum, from the combination of two Pesukim "Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tz'ror" - suggesting that *both* the Ervah and the Tzarah are forbidden, and "le'Galos Ervasah" - suggesting that only *one* of them is forbidden.

(b) The only way of reconciling them (as we shall no see) is by saying - that the *first* Pasuk (forbidding both women) speaks when there *is* a Mitzvah of Yibum, and the *second* (which permits one woman - the Tzarah), when there is *not*.

(c) We cannot say the opposite: that when there is *no* Mitzvah of Yibum, let both the Ervah and her Tzarah be Asur, and when there *is*, let us forbid the Ervah and permit the Tzarah - because we have already learned from "Alehah" that be'Makom Mitzvah is more stringent than she'Lo be'Makom Mitzvah.

(d) Neither can we say that "Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tz'ror" comes to forbid both the Ervah and the Tzarah when there is *no* Mitzvah, and "Alehah", to permit both the Ervah and the Tzarah when there *is* - because then how will we explain the Pasuk "le'Galos Ervasah", suggesting that there is a case where one of the women is Asur and one, Mutar.

(a) Rebbi learns Tzaras Ervah, not from "li'Tz'ror", but from "ve'Lakach - u'Lekachah", "ve'Yibem - ve'Yibmah". He explains "li'Tz'ror" like Rebbi Shimon. The Tana Kama says there that if three brothers, two of whom married two sisters, say, or a woman and her daughter, and both died and fell before the Yavam - that he performs Chalitzah (in order to remove the Zikah), but not Yibum (since Zikah is considered a partial Kidushin, so that each woman becomes like a wife's sister (though not completely - in which case it would remove even the obligation of Chalitzah).

(b) Rebbi Shimon holds - that they do not even require Chalitzah either (because of the Pasuk "li'Tz'ror", which teaches us that, when two sisters become Tzaros through a Zikah, both are forbidden min ha'Torah, and therefore do not need to make Chalitzah either).

(c) Rebbi Darshens "ve'Lakach - u'Lekachah" - that whenever one may take either of two women who fall to Yibum, they are permitted; but wherever one of them is forbidden, then he may not take the other one, either.

(d) He then goes on to explain "ve'Yibem, ve'Yibmah" - that this only applies to be'Makom Yibum, but she'Lo be'Makom Yibum, the Tzarah is permitted.

(a) The Rabbanan (who learn the above from "Alehah") explain "u'Lekachah" like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who Darshens from there that Yibum turns the Yevamah into a proper wife, whom he may later divorce and then remarry'. We would otherwise have thought - that having performed the Mitzvah, once he divorces her, she reverts to being 'Eishes Achiv', and is strictly forbidden to him.

(b) They Darshen from "ve'Yibmah" - 'Afilu Ba'al Korchah' (even against her will - which, in the case of ordinary Kidushin or marriage, would not be valid).

(c) Rebbi learns Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's Din (that should he subsequently divorce her, he is permitted to remarry her) from "u'Lekachah Lo *le'Ishah*". From "Yevamah Yavo Alehah" - he learns that Yibum may even be Ba'al Korchah.

(d) The ramifications of 'Im Ba Alehah Ba'al Korchah, Kan'ah' (apart from the fact that he has fulfilled the Din of Yibum) - are among other things, that he inherits her and buries her (even if he is a Kohen) when she dies.