Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yehudah learns from the word "li'Tz'ror" - that, not only is the Tzaras Ervah forbidden, but so is the Tzaras Tzarah (which he learns from the extra 'Reish').

(b) Rav Ashi learns this from a S'vara - because the Tzarah is forbidden seeing as she adopts the Chumra of her Tzarah. In that case, it stands to reason that, should she marry one of the other brothers, she will transmit the same Isur to her new Tzarah.

(a) Our Mishnah permits Tzaras Ervah, should the Ervah become divorced before her husband's death, even if he married the Tzarah *before* divorcing the Ervah, according to our Tana - because he holds 'Misah Mapeles' (it is the death of the husband that causes the Yevamah to fall before his brothers to Yibum - irrespective of what happened before).

(b) The Tana of the Mishnah in ha'Choletz, on the other hand, who permits the Tzarah only if he married her *after* the divorce - holds 'Nisu'in ha'Rishonim Mapilim' (it is the initial marriage that causes her to fall to Yibum). Consequently, if he married her before he divorced the Ervah, she immediately becomes a Tzaras Ervah.

(c) Rava establishes both Mishnayos according to the same Tana - by explaining them as 'Zu, ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu' (our Mishnah teaches us even the case when he married the Tzarah *before* the divorce, and the Mishnah in ha'Choletz adds the more obvious case of when he married her *after* the divorce); and both Mishnayos hold 'Misah Mapeles'.

(a) According to Rebbi Oshaya, a girl can only make Miy'un on the Yavam to remove the *Ma'amar* that he made with her, but not to remove the *Zikah*. We attempt to prove this from our Mishnah, which declares that the Tzarah of any of the Arayos in our Mishnah, who could have made Miy'un but did not, requires Chalitzah - implying that she cannot make Miy'un now (to remove the Zikah).

(b) We refute this proof however - because the reason that she cannot make Miy'un now is because she looks as if she is Tzaras Bito (like the Beraisa of Rami bar Yechezkel - as we learned on Daf 12a.).

(a) The Tana now lists six cases which are more stringent than the fifteen listed in the first Mishnah - because they are forbidden to any of the brothers.

(b) Consequently - the Tzarah is permitted to the Yavam.

(a) The first of these is Imo - meaning 'Imo Anusas Aviv' (Bartenura - it is not clear why Rashi says 'Eishes Aviv').

(b) One of the remaining cases is Eishes Achiv me'Aviv - who is forbidden to all the brothers because it speaks when they had children, in which case there is no Mitzvah of Yibum.

(c) Besides his father's wife and sister (and the two cases that we just discussed) - the list also incorporates his paternal sister and his father's brother's wife.

6)

(a) The author of our Mishnah to date is Beis Hillel. Beis Shamai say that ...

1. ... Tzaros Ervah in general - are permitted to the brothers.
2. ... a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Chalitzah - is forbidden to marry a Kohen.
3. ... a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Yibum - is permitted to marry a Kohen after the Yavam's death.

(b) Beis Hillel say that ...

1. ... a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Chalitzah - is permitted to marry a Kohen (because her Chalitzah is unnecessary and therefore meaningless).
2. ... a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Yibum - is a Zonah, and is therefore forbidden to marry a Kohen.

(c) According to Beis Hillel - the child of a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Yibum is a Mamzer (like every product of Chayvei K'risus).

(d) Despite the fact that some of the women from Beis Shamai were Mamzeirim according to Beis Hillel, Beis Hillel did not desist from marrying the daughters of Beis Shamai - because they knew that Beis Shamai would inform them if that was the case, and there was complete trust between them.

8)

(a) Beis Shamai derive that Tzaras Ervah is permitted, from the Pasuk "Lo Sihyeh Eishes ha'Meis ha'Chutzah le'Ish Zar" - teaching us that "Chutzah" (an external woman, who is not related) may not marry anyone else (when she is a Yevamah) 'mi'Ch'lal de'Ika P'nimis' (implying that there is an internal one - an Ervah), and although the wife who is not an Ervah has a Tzarah who is, the Torah nevertheless forbids her to marry anyone else other than the Yavam, unless she first performs Chalitzah.

(b) Beis Hillel learn from that Pasuk - that the Kidushin of a Yevamah with another man is *not* valid (like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav) even though it is only a La'av, which generally *is*.

(c) Beis Shamai argue that the Torah does not write "ha'Chutz", but "ha'Chutzah". Beis Hillel counter that - with the principle that whenever the Torah places a 'Hey' at the end of a noun, it is as if it had written a 'Lamed' at the beginning (in which case "Chutzah" is no different than "le'Chutz", leaving us with nothing to Darshen).

(a) In fact, we conclude, both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel learn that Kidushin is not effective on a Yevamah le'Shuk, from the last words in the Pasuk "le'Ish Zar". Beis Hillel learn from "ha'Chutzah" - that even a woman who falls to Yibum from the betrothal (although she was not yet close to the brother when he died) is also subject to Yibum.

(b) Beis Shamai learn this from the 'Hey' in "ha'Chutzah" - Beis Hillel do not make any D'rashah from the 'Hey', which they do not consider superfluous.

(c) Rava gives the reason of Beis Shamai as 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' - meaning that the Isur of Eishes Ach does not take effect on the existing Isur of Bito (or on any of the other fourteen Arayos). Consequently, the Tzarah is the Tzarah of an Ervah she'Lo be'Makom Mitzvah, who is permitted to the Yavam, as we learned above.

(d) The Tzarah is permitted even if the brother married the Ervah only after the Yavam had married her sister, in which case the Ervah preceded that of Eishes Achiv, for the reason that we just stated: that the Isur of Eishes Ach (which takes effect only with the death of the brother (as we saw on Amud Aleph) cannot come into effect because of the existing Ervah. The Gemara however, misunderstood Rava, thinking that he was referring to those Arayos that come through Kidushin, and that it is *those* Arayos (such as Achos Ishah) that do not come into effect on the existing Eishes Ach.

(a) The Tana needs to say that, even if the Tzaros made Chalitzah, they are nevertheless permitted to a Kohen - to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who tried to institute Chalitzah for Tzaros Ervah, as we shall soon see. Had he succeeded, the Chalitzah would have disqualified them from marrying Kohanim.

(b) He sees fit to add 'Nisyabmu, Beis Shamai Machshirin ... ' - not because it is necessary, but because, having told us the Din by 'Chaltzu', he completed the picture by telling us the Din by 'Nisyabmu', too.

(a) Resh Lakish asked - how the Tana in the opening Mishnah in Megilah can permit the reading of the Megilah on different days by different groups of people, considering the principle not to break the laws of the Torah into separate groups, some keeping it like this, and others, like that (which we learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Sisgodedu" - 'Lo Sa'asu Agudos Agudos')?

(b) We learn from the fact that the Torah writes "Lo Sisgodedu", and not ...

1. ... "Lo Segodedu" - that this is not a prohibition to cut oneself because someone died, but not to make groups ... .
2. ... "Lo Sagodu" - that the Pasuk is not *confined* to the latter, but incorporates the former, too.

(a) Resh Lakish is not concerned about the Mishnah in Pesachim, which deals with the custom not to work on Erev Pesach until midday, which some places observe, and others do not - because the La'av is restricted to Halachos, but not to Minhagim, by which the Torah does not forbid breaking up into groups.

(b) Resh Lakish was not concerned about the Mishnah regarding working on the previous night (Leil Bedikas Chametz), where some people follow the opinion of Beis Shamai (who forbid) and others, that of Beis Hillel (who permit), a Halachah, and not a Minhag - because there it does not resemble two Toros, since someone who sees people not working, will automatically ascribe this to the fact that they have no work to do (a common enough phenomenon), rather than to a different opinion.

(c) Nor is he concerned with our Mishnah, where Beis Shamai permit Tzaras Ervah, whereas Beis Hillel forbid her - because, in his opinion, Beis Shamai only argued with Beis Hillel in theory, but not in practice.