Previous daf

1) According to Rebbi Shimon, Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo who was born after the second brother performed Yibum, is permitted, because he found her be'Heter when he was born. We say that S'vara here, by the Isur of Eishes Ach - which normally *has* a Heter, but not by his maternal sister whose paternal brother married her before he was born, and who now falls to Yibum - since the Isur of Achos does *not*.

2)

(a) An Isur ...

1. ... Mitzvah - refers to Sh'niyos.
2. ... Kedushah - refers to Chayvei La'avin.

(b) An Isur Ervah is Patur from Yibum and Chalitzah - whereas an Isur Mitzvah and Isur Kedushah must perform Chalitzah.

(a) 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, Gerushah va'Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot'. It is possible for a Gerushah to fall to her husband's brother who is a Kohen, to Yibum - only if his brother married her be'Isur.

(b) No Isur was performed however, in the case of Almanah le'Kohen Gadol - whose brother (even if he was a Kohen Gadol) did nothing wrong, since she only became an Almanah after his death.

(c) The Tana also lists - a Mamzeres or a Nesinah to a Yisrael, and a Bas Yisrael to a Nasin or a Mamzer.

(d) We learn that Chayvei La'avin fall to Yibum in the first place, despite the fact that they are forbidden to perform Yibum - from Achos Ishah (above 3b.), which is the source for exempting Arayos from Yibum, and is restricted to La'avin which carry with them Kareis (though that is not the explanation given in our Sugya).

(a) The Mishnah opens with the words 'K'lal Amru bi'Yevamah, Kol she'Isurah Isur Ervah'. According to Rafram bar Papa, this comes to *include* Tzaras Aylonis in the Din of Isur Ervah, like Rav Asi above (12a). Others quote Rafram as saying exactly the opposite - that cases whose Isur is an Ervah are exempt the Tzaros from Yibum, to *preclude* cases which are not Arayos, such as Tzaras Aylonis (not like Rav Asi).

(b) When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Achosah she'Hi Yevimtah, Choletzes O Misyabemes' - he means that when two sisters whom two brothers married fall to the Yavam, who is a close relative of one of them, then he may perform Yibum or Chalitzah with the other one. The Tana must be referring to the sister of the Isur *Ervah* (at the beginning of the Mishnah), and not to the sister of the Isur *Mitzvah* (which precedes our case), because in the latter case, since mi'd'Oraysa, the Isur Mitzvah falls to him for Yibum, the sister would be forbidden to him because of Achos Zekukaso.

(c) The Tana refers to ...

1. ... Sh'niyos as 'Isur Mitzvah' - because it is a Mitzvah to listen to the words of the Chachamim.
2. ... Almanah le'Kohen Gadol etc. as 'Isur Kedushah' - because the Torah writes with regard to Kohanim in Emor "Kedoshim Yiheyu l'Elokeihem" (this is unclear however, seeing as Isur Kedushah includes cases that are not La'avin of Kohanim).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa switches the descriptions. According to him, the Tana refers to ...

1. ... Almanah le'Kohen Gadol etc. as 'Isur Mitzvah' - because of the final Pasuk in Seifer Vayikra "Eileh ha'Mitzvos" (which incorporates the La'avin of the Kohanim).
2. ... Sh'niyos as 'Isur Kedushah' - because it is included in the principle 'Kadeish Atzmecha be'Mutar Lach'.

6)

(a) An Almanah le'Kohen Gadol incorporates both the La'av of "Almanah Lo Yikach" - and the Asei of "ve'Hu Ishah bi'V'sulehah Yikach".

(b) The problem with the presumption that we are talking about both an Almanah who was *married* who fell to the Kohen Gadol, and one who was only *betrothed* is - that in the latter case, there is no Asei, so why should the Asei of Yibum not override the Lo Sa'aseh?

(c) We initially resolve this from the superfluous word "ve'Alsah *Yevimto* ha'Sha'arah" - which is superfluous, and which comes to teach us that there is a case of a Yevamah who only falls to Chalitzah and not to Yibum (Chayvei La'avin).

(d) W know that this D'rashah does not incorporate Chayvei Kareis - because of the Pasuk "Im Lo Yachpotz ha'Ish la'Kachas es Yevimto" (with reference to Chalitzah), implying that Chalitzah only applies to a woman with whom he could have performed Yibum had he chosen to ('Kol ha'Olah le'Yibum Olah la'Chalitzah ... '), but not to Chayvei Kareis.

7)

(a) We include Chayvei La'avin for Chalitzah only (from "Yevimto"), but preclude Chayvei Kareis (from "Im Lo Yachpotz") - on the grounds that Kidushin is effective by Chayvei La'avin, but not by Chayvei Kareis.

(b) If a Yavam performs Yibum with a Chayvei La'avin - he does not acquire her (according to our current theory), and her Tzarah is not free to marry le'Shuk.

(c) When the Beraisa says 'Isur Mitzvah ve'Isur Kedushah *Ba Alehah* O Chalatz Lah, Nifterah Tzarasah' 'li'Tz'dadin' - explains Rava, 'Ba Alehah' relates to Isur Mitzvah (which is only an Isur de'Rabbanan), and 'Chalatz Lah', to Isur Kedushah which is an Isur La'av.

(d) The Beraisa says that if a P'tzu'a Daka, a K'rus Shafchah or a S'ris Chamah (all of whom are Chayvei La'avin - regarding marrying a Kasher Jewess) - performed Yibum, they acquire the Yevamah, repudiating our current theory that Chayvei La'avin re precluded from performing Yibum mi'd'Oraysa from "Yevimto".

(a) When the Tana of the Beraisa says (with regard to the aforementioned Chayvei La'avin) 'O Choltzin O Meyabmin' - he is referring to Chalitzah Lechatchilah, and Yibum Bedieved.

(b) The Tana includes a Zakein in the list, not because he is also among the Chayvei La'avin - but to teach us that even though a Zakein can no longer father children, his Bi'ah is nevertheless Koneh the Yevamah.

(c) The Tana also adds that Ma'amar, a Get and Chalitzah are all effective. A Get on a Yevamah is effective - inasmuch as it prohibits any of the brothers from subsequently performing Yibum with her. It does not allow her to marry le'Shuk.

(d) If a Yavam ...

1. ... performed Yibum with a Chayvei La'avin - he is obligated to give her a Get immediately.
2. ... who is a Zakein performed Yibum with his Yevamah - he is permitted to remain with her.

(a) We now see from the Beraisa that Chayvei La'avin are also subject to Yibum min ha'Torah. According to Rava's initial explanation, Chayvei La'avin may perform Yibum, and Almanah le'Kohen Gadol is different, because there is also the Asei - of "Kedoshim Yiheyu l'Elokeihem".

(b) We cannot preclude Mamzeres and Nesinah from Yibum on the grounds that they too, are included in the Asei of "ve'Hiskadishtem" - because if "ve'Hiskadishtem" would be an Asei, then it would incorporate every single La'av in the Torah, and no Asei could ever override a Lo Sa'aseh.

(a) According to Rava's next contention (that Chazal forbade certain cases of Chayvei La'avin because of a decree), they forbade ...

1. ... Almanah min ha'Eirusin to perform Yibum - on account of Almanah min ha'Nisu'in.
2. ... Mamzeres u'Nesinah - be'Makom Mitzvah, on account of she'Lo be'Makom Mitzvah.

(b) Nevertheless, they did not decree ...

1. ... the wife of his paternal brother on account of his maternal brother - because the Torah connected Yibum with inheritance, so everyone will know that it does not pertain to one's maternal brother, who does not inherit.
2. ... a woman who does *not* have children on account of one who *does* - because the Torah specifically connects the Mitzvah of Yibum to not having children, so nobody will make such a mistake.
3. ... the wife of a brother who *lived* at the same time as the Yavam, on account of one who did *not* - because here too, the Torah specifically connected Yibum to brothers who live together in the world.
4. ... all women who can have children on account of an Aylonis - because the latter is uncommon (and we have a principle that Chazal did not issue a decree in cases that are uncommon).

(c) According to what we just said - why did Chazal decree an Isur forbidding a Mamzeres and Nesinah le'Yisrael to make Yibum, seeing as neither of them is common?

(a) Rava finally explains that Chayvei La'avin are precluded from Yibum - mi'de'Rabbanan, because min ha'Torah, the Mitzvah that overrides the La'av consists only of the first Bi'ah. After that, the Yavam has to give his Yevamah a Get. And Chazal decreed Bi'ah Rishonah because of Bi'ah Sh'niyah (see Tosfos DH 'Atu').

(b) Rava retracts however from this (in spite of a Beraisa which supports him), due to a statement made by Resh Lakish (though others ascribe this Kashya to Rav Ashi) - who said that whenever it is possible to perform the Asei in a way that avoids contravening the La'av, then one is not permitted to contravene the La'av.

(c) Here, the Yavam has the option of performing Chalitzah - in which case, he will perform the Asei and avoid contravening the La'av.

(d) Rava's Kashya is rejected however, from the Beraisa 'Im Ba'alu Kanu' - from which we see that min ha'Torah, Chayvei La'avin are subject to Yibum (and it is only the Rabbanan who forbade it through a decree, like Rava explained before he retracted).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar argue over whether the Yibum performed by a Kohen Gadol on an Almanah exempts her Tzarah from Yibum. They are arguing over an Almanah min ha'Eirusin (where there is only a La'av, and no Asei). The one who says that he is, holds like Rava's final explanation; whereas the one who holds that he is not, holds like his Kashya from Resh Lakish.

(b) The Beraisa of 'Im Ba'alu, Kanu' proves that Chayvei La'avin are in fact, subject to Yibum min ha'Torah. This is not a proof against Resh Lakish (who says that whenever one can fulfill the Asei without negating the La'av, one is obligated to do so) however - because Resh Lakish will answer that Chalitzah in face of Yibum is not a Mitzvah, and is therefore not considered an alternative.