Previous daf

1)

(a) We just proved from the Mishnah in Arba'ah Achin that Rebbi Shimon is not sure whether Zikah (together with Ma'amar) is Koneh or not (how much more so can we not say with certainty that Zikah on its own is Koneh). But we counter this by asking that perhaps really, Ma'amar *is* Koneh in his opinion, and the reason that he requires Chalitzah on the second Yevamah is because of a decree - that people might otherwise think that when two Yevamos fall to Yibum at the same time from two different houses, the first one only requires Yibum and the second one is Patur.

(b) We refute this contention - on the grounds that Rebbi Shimon himself gave the reason as being a Safek whether Ma'amar is Koneh or not, and not due to a decree.

(c) So Abaye tries to resolve the discrepancy between our theory that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Zikah ki'Ch'nusah', and the Mishnah in Arba'ah Achin - by restricting Rebbi Shimon's S'vara of 'Zikah ki'Ch'nusah' to a case of where there is *One* Yavam, but not where are two.

(a) 'K'lal Amar Rebbi Shimon; Kol she'ha'Leidah Kodemes le'Nisu'in, Lo Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes; Nisu'in Kodem le'Leidah, O Choletzes O Misyabemes'. According to what we just said - there must be two Yevamin there besides the new-born brother, because otherwise, even though he was born before the second brother performed Yibum, he should be permitted to perform Yibum, seeing as, by one brother, Rebbi Shimon holds 'Zikah ki'Ch'nusah' (in which case, it is as if he was born *after* the second brother had performed Yibum.

(b) The Tana differentiates between 'Leidah Kodemes le'Nisu'in' and 'Nisu'in Kodem le'Leidah', and not between one Yavam and two Yevamin - because he wants to establish the entire Beraisa by *two* Yevamin.

(c) We object to this however - because it is senseless to confine the Beraisa to a case of *two* Yevamin, ignoring the fact that, when there is only *one*, the Din will be different.

(a) In a Mishnah in Arba'ah Achin, the Tana Kama says that if two out of three brothers were married to two sisters, or a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her granddaughter (the daughter of her son or of her daughter) and died, both women require Chalitzah. Based on the Pasuk "ve'Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tz'ror" - Rebbi Shimon says whenever two sisters (or two other blood relatives) become Tzaros through the Zikah (like in this case), they are Patur from Yibum or Chalitzah.

(b) Rav Oshaya attempts to refute our theory that (even by *one* brother) Rebbi Shimon holds 'Zikah ki'Ch'nusah' from here - because if that was the case, then the Yavam should be able to perform Yibum with the Yevamah that fell first, and the second one should be exempt?

(c) We reject Rav Amram's suggestion that Rebbi Shimon does indeed only exempt the Yevamah that falls second to the Yavam, but not the one who falls first - on the basis of another Beraisa, in which Rebbi Shimon explicitly exempts both women from Yibum altogether.

(a) Rava tried to answer 'Sh'niyah she'be'Zug Zeh u'Sh'niyah she'be'Zug Zeh' - because he thought that the Beraisa was talking when the two brothers married all the pairs mentioned there: the two sisters, the mother and daughter, the woman and her son's daughter and the woman and her daughter's daughter. Then both brothers died and all four pairs fell to the third brother for Yibum.

(b) Besides the fact that the Mishnah explicitly writes 'O' between each of the cases (and not 'u') - the Tana of the Beraisa ought to have then said 'Rebbi Shimon Poter *be'Arba'tan'* rather than '*bi'Sh'teihen*'.

(c) We bring a further proof, based on Rebbi Shimon's D'rashah from the Pasuk "ve'Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tz'ror" (that sisters who become Tzaros through the Zikah are Patur even from Chalitzah) that he does *not* hold 'Zikah ki'Ch'nusah' even by one Yavam - because if he *did*, then the first of the two sisters to fall, should require Yibum.

(d) We reinstate our original contention that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Zikah ki'Ch'nusah' by establishing Rebbi Shimon like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - who says that it is possible for two animals in the same litter to be born at exactly the same moment. Likewise we establish the Mishnah and the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon (who holds like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili) when both Yevamos fell to Yibum simultaneously; that is when he exempts the two sisters from Yibum.

6)

(a) Rav Papa disagrees with Rav Oshaya, who maintained on the previous Amud that Rebbi Shimon argues with the Rabbanan in our Mishnah even in the Reisha (by Nolad ve'Achar-Kach Yibeim). According to him, the Tana needs to mention the Reisha (according to the Chachamim) - in the form of 'Lo Zu Af Zu', meaning that it is the way of the Mishnah to mention the smaller Chidush first, and then to add the bigger Chidush afterwards.

(b) We prove Rav Papa's opinion from the last case in the Beraisa, which cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon by 'Yibeim ve'li'b'Sof Nolad Lo Ach' - because it can only be in order to establish in which case Rebbi Shimon argues, that the Tana mentions this as a separate case. According to Rebbi Meir, who does not differentiate between whether the Yibum preceded the birth of the third son or not, it would not be necessary to mention it as a separate case.

7)

(a) The first case in the Beraisa exempts the third brother to perform Yibum with the wife of the second, but not with the Yevamah who fell from the first brother, and with whom the second brother wanted to make Ma'amar, but did not manage to. What the Tana means is - that he did not manage to gain her consent, and had to make Ma'amar without it, like the Rabbanan of Rebbi.

(b) According to Rebbi - the Ma'amar that a Yavam makes without the Yevamah's consent is valid, because he learns Ma'amar from the Bi'ah of Yibum (which *acquires* even without the Yevamah's consent); according to the Rabbanan, it is not valid, because they learn it from regular Kidushin, which does *not*.

(c) We learn that ...

1. ... Yibum may be performed even without the consent of the Yevamah - from "ve'Yibmah" (see Sugya 8b.)
2. ... Kidushin can only be performed with the woman's consent - from "ve'Halchah ve'Haysah le'Ish Acher" (implying of her own free will).

(d) 'Rebbi Shimon Omer, Bi'asah O Chalitzasah shel Achas Meihen Poteres Tzarasah'. Rebbi Shimon is coming to argue, not on the case of 'Nolad Lo Ach, ve'Achar-Kach Asah Bah Ma'amar' but on that of 'Asah Bah Ma'amar ve'Achar-Kach Nolad Lo Ach' - because we have already learned that, if the third brother was born before Yibum (and certainly before Ma'amar) was performed, then Rebbi Shimon concedes to the Chachamim that the Yevamah remains forbidden. The Chidush now is that Ma'amar is either Koneh completely or not Koneh at all.

(a) 'Chalatz le'Ba'alas Ma'amar, Lo Nifterah Tzarah' - because the Tzarah is a Vaday (Zekukah), whereas the Ba'alas Ma'amar is a Safek (maybe Ma'amar is Koneh), and a Safek cannot remove the obligation of a Vaday.

(b) Rebbi Shimon has explained why he permits the third brother, if he is born after the second brother performed Yibum with her. But, considering that there was never a Zikah of the first brother between her and the third brother, why should the Rabbanan forbid her to him?

(c) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'Lekachah Lo le'Ishah *ve'Yibmah*" - that the original Yibumin remain with the Yevamah even after the second brother has performed Yibum (solving our problem in the previous question).
2. ... "u'Lekachah Lo le'Ishah" - that, once the Yavam has acquired her through Yibum, she becomes his wife, even to the extent that he can divorce her and take her back, because the Isur of Eishes Ach has dissolved.

(d) We Darshen from the latter D'rashah that she becomes his wife in totality - because it is speaking about the Mitzvah of Yibum, which is basically permitted; and from the former, that the original Yibumin remains - because it is speaking about Eishes Achiv, which basically involves an Isur.