Previous daf

1)

(a) There are two sets of circumstances under which all the above prohibitions (Chacham, Meivi Get and Mei'id) become permitted; one of them is if they were already married at the time that they got involved with the woman - the other, if the woman first married someone else, who then divorced her or died.

(b) The women are permitted to marry the relatives of the men concerned.

(c) The Tana permits them to marry the women concerned if they were already married at the time and their wives died afterwards, but not, it seems, if they became divorced. The Beraisa which permits them to marry them even if they got divorced - speaks when they were already quarreling before the husband became involved with the second woman, so that there is no real basis for suspicion.

(d) Alternatively, we establish the Beraisa, even if they had not quarreled earlier - in a case when it was the wife who began the quarrel.

(a) When the Tana says 've'Chulan she'Nis'u la'Acheirim, ve'Nisgarshu O she'Nis'almenu, Mutaros li'Nasei Lahem'. We think that Misah ('Nis'almenu') refers also to the earlier case of 'Meis, Haragtiv ... ', and Geirushin to 'ha'Meivi Get' - in which case, the author of our Mishnah could not be Rebbi, who holds that, once a woman has lost two husbands, she has a Chazakah of being a 'Katlanis' (a woman who kills her husbands) and is not permitted to marry a third time.

(b) In order to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi - we establish Misah on the case of 'ha'Meivi Get', and Geirushin on that of 'Meis, Haragtiv ... '.

(a) Our Mishnah permits a woman to marry the sons or the brothers of the suspected man, whereas the Mishnah in ha'Ishah Rabah forbids the suspected man to marry the mother or the daughter of the woman concerned - because women tended to socialize at home more than men did. Consequently, in our Mishnah, if the woman marries the son or the brother of the man with whom she had an affair, we are not afraid that she might meet the man himself when he comes to visit his relative, whereas we are afraid that the man might meet with the woman in the house of her mother or daughter.

(b) The reason that the Tana mentions specifically the man's son or brother, omitting his father - is because it is obvious that, should she marry the man's father, his son will be too embarrassed to misbehave in his father's house, and the Tana is coming to teach us that even if she marries the son or the brother, there is no cause for suspicion.

4)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if two of four brothers marry two sisters and die, then the remaining brothers must perform Chalitzah and not Yibum. According to the Tana Kama, if they did perform Yibum, they must immediately divorce their Yevamos. According to Rebbi Eliezer - that is the opinion of Beis Hillel, but in the opinion of Beis Shamai, they may remain with them.

(b) If one of the sisters is ...

1. ... an Ervah (e.g. a mother-in-law) to one of the brothers - then he is even permitted to perform *Yibum* with the other sister.
2. ... a Sh'niyah or a Chayvei La'avin - then he is obligated to perform Chalitzah but not Yibum.

(c) The reason for this difference is - because min ha'Torah, an Isur Ervah does *not* fall to Yibum at all (so the Tzarah is not a Tzaras Ervah), whereas the Chayvei La'avin *do* (making the Tzarah a Tzaras Chayvei La'avin).

(d) They said 'Achosah ke'she'Hi Yevimtah, O Choletzes O Misyabemes' - in a case when each sister is an Ervah to one of the brothers.

(a) Considering the two sisters who fall to the two brothers fall from two houses, we initially contend that the Tana of our Mishnah must hold 'Yesh Zikah' - enabling the Yavam to nullify her Nedarim, and to forbid her relatives on him (besides the Din being discussed in our Mishnah).

(b) We refute the proof that 'Yesh Zikah' - by giving the reason for prohibiting Yibum on the Yevamah's sister as 'Asur le'Vateil Mitzvas Yibum' (in case the second brother dies before he has managed to perform Yibum or Chalitzah with the second sister (as we discussed above on Daf 18a.).

(c) The Tana speaks specifically of *four* brothers, and not three, where the Yibum will certainly be nullified - precisely because it is there (where there are three), where he will *definitely* negate the Mitzvah of Yibum with one of the sisters should he perform Yibum with the other one, it is obvious that he should perform Chalitzah (in order to be able to perform Chalitzah with her sister); whereas here (where there are four), the Tana needs to inform us that, although it is only a Safek, we still decree.

(d) This would not be a problem if the Tana's reason was 'Yesh Zikah (va'Afilu bi'Trei Achi)' -because then the Chidush would be that even when there are *two* brothers, neither of them may perform Yibum, because of Achos Zekukaso (and we do not say that it will later transpire retroactively that the Zikah of each Yevamah was specifically designated for the Yavam who performed Yibum with her ['B'reirah']), how much more so when there is only *one*.

6)

(a) The Tana specifically states the Din of two sisters when there are *four* brothers, as we just explained - but in a case of five brothers, two of the remaining three brothers will be permitted to perform Yibum, because we do not contend with the probability of two brothers dying.

(b) Rabah bar Rav Huna quoting Rav says that, if three sisters fall before two brothers for Yibum, the middle one requires Chalitzah from both brothers. This means that he holds 'Yesh Zikah' - because it is only the fact that the Zikah ties the third Yevamah to both brothers that obligate Chalitzah from each brother. This is due to the fact that the Chalitzah is a weak one, seeing as both brothers are tied to her, and neither can perform Yibum, due to the fact that she is Achos Chalutzaso.

(c) Had all three sisters been Yevamos simultaneously, they would indeed all require Chalitzah from each of the brothers - Rav is speaking however, when each of the first two sisters fell to Yibum independently, and one brother immediately performed Chalitzah with her, before the next brother died. Consequently, the problem only arises when the third sister falls to them for Yibum.

(d) Even though Rav himself is of the opinion 'Ein Zikah' - he said this Halachah according to those who hold 'Yesh Zikah'.

(a) Shmuel rules 'Echad Choletz le'Chulan' - But did Shmuel himself not say that in a case where two sisters who were married to two brothers, who fell before the third brother to Yibum, each one together with a Tzarah - he must perform *Chalitzah* with the Tzaros and not with the sisters, who are Achos Zekukos? By the same token, how can we permit one brother to perform Chalitzah with the second sister (a Chalitzah Pesulah), when there is another brother who is able to perform a Chalitzah Kesheirah?

(b) Even though the Yavam is forbidden to perform Yibum with the Tzarah no more than with the two sisters, it is nevertheless preferable to make Chalitzah with the Tzaros - because the Isur on the Tzaros is weaker than the Isur on the sisters themselves.

(c) We answer the Kashya - by explaining 've'Chulan' of Shmuel to refer to the third Yevamah only.

(d) He said 'le'Chulan' - because the Yavam who performs Chalitzah with her, has performed Chalitzah with the majority of the Yevamos.

Next daf