Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, our Mishnah, which requires both brothers to perform Chalitzah with the two sisters who fell to Yibum, must be a mistake (because one of the brothers should later be permitted to make Yibum with the first sister that fell). He declines to explain that it is ...

1. ... a decree in case he first makes Chalitzah with the *first* Yevamah, and Yibum with the second - because the Mishnah says 've'Lo Misyabemes', implying that there is no Din Yibum at all (even if he made Chalitzah with the *second* one).
2. ... because really the Tana holds 'Ein Zikah', and he decreed in all cases of two sisters who fall to two brothers, whenever one of them requires Chalitzah and the other, Yibum (requiring Chalitzah with both, in case one comes to perform Yibum first, and the other brother dies, causing the Mitzvah of Yibum to become negated) - because Rebbi Yochanan does not contend with the possibility of the Yavam dying.

(b) Nor does he want to answer that the Tana of our Mishnah is ...

1. ... Rebbi Elazar, whom we know holds that any Yevamah who was forbidden even for one hour, remains forbidden forever - because, seeing as the Seifa of the Mishnah is Rebbi Elazar, it appears that the Reisha is not.
2. ... Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who maintains that two twin events can occur simultaneously, and our Mishnah speaks when both brothers died (and both sisters fell to Yibum) at the same time, in which case neither of them was permitted when they fell - because we do not find a S'tam Mishnah that goes like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.

(c) Nor can our Mishnah be speaking when they simply don't know which sister fell first, and that explains why neither Yavam may perform Yibum - because then, why would the Tana conclude 'Kadmu ve'Kansu, Yotzi'u'? Why should the second Yavam not be permitted to retain his Yevamah, seeing as (unlike his brother, who definitely married be'Isur, before the Zikah had been removed from the sister) *he* married his Yevamah after the Zikah had been removed from the sister). Consequently, he should be able to remain with his Yevamah, because nobody can prove that he married her be'Isur.

3)

(a) Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa maintains (like he does in our Mishnah) that Beis Hillel hold 'Im Kansu Yotzi'u', and Beis Shamai, 'Yekaymu'. Aba Shaul reverses the opinions. Rebbi Shimon holds 'Im Kansu, Yekaymu'. In fact he holds - that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel do not argue at all, and this is the joint opinion of both of them.

(b) We already learned above in a Mishnah in Perek Keitzad that, when two sisters fall to *one* Yavam, 'Achosah ke'she'Hi Yevimtah, O Choletzes O Misyabemes'. The Tana sees fit to repeat it ...

1. ... here in our Mishnah - because we might otherwise have thought that here, where there is a brother who is forbidden to make Yibum, we might decree on the one who is permitted, in case his brother also decides to follow suite and do likewise.
2. ... there, having learned it here - because here at least there is another brother who is forbidden to perform Yibum, which will serve to remind us that Achos Zekukaso is forbidden; whereas in the first case, where there is no brother, we would otherwise have forbidden Yibum, in case people come to permit Achos Zekukaso.

(c) We also learned there 'Isur Mitzvah ve'Isur Kedushah Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes'. The Tana sees fit to repeat it here - because here, where she is also Achos Zekukaso, perhaps we will place the Isur Mitzvah together with the Isur Ervah, removing the name of Achos Zekukaso, and permit the Yavam to make Yibum with her sister.

(d) Despite the fact that min ha'Torah, an Isur Mitzvah falls to Yibum, we would nevertheless have thought that, when she is Achos Chalutzaso as well, he may perform Yibum with her sister - because since Zikah is only mi'de'Rabbanan, the Rabbanan may well have removed it if there is an Isur Mitzvah or Kedushah in addition to that of Achos Zekukaso, in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Yibum.

4) The Tana has already taught us in the Reisha that if one of the Yevamos is an Ervah to the Yavam, then he is permitted to perform Yibum with her Tzarah. Having taught it ...

1. ... there, the Tana nevertheless needs to inform us that the same will apply in the Seifa (when two sisters fall to *two* brothers, each of whom is an Ervah to one of them) - because in the Seifa, where both brothers are permitted to Yibum with one of the sisters, we might have forbidden Yibum, on the grounds that people will otherwise think that Achos Zekukaso is permitted; whereas in the Reisha, the fact that one of the brothers is forbidden will remind us that it is not.
2. ... in the Seifa (when there are *two* Yevamin), he nevertheless needs to repeat it in the Reisha (when there is only *one*) - because we would otherwise have said that it is there, where each brother is forbidden to one of the sisters, that we are not afraid that they will perform Yibum with the forbidden sister; whereas in the Reisha, where one of the brothers is forbidden to both sisters, we would have forbidden Yibum, in case he comes to think that he too, like his brother, is permitted to perform Yibum with one of the sisters.

(a) When the Tana writes '*ve'Zu Hi she'Amru*, Achosah ke'she'Hi Yevimtah O Choletzes O Misyabemes' - he means to preclude a case where each sister is also an Isur Mitzvah or Kedushah on one of the brothers, in which case Yibum is forbidden?

(b) The Tana needs to repeat this in the case when *each* of the sisters is also an Isur Mitzvah on one of the two Yevamin, even though he has already taught it to us when *one* of them is - because we would have thought that it is when only *one* of them is an Isur Mitzvah or Kedushah and not the other, that Chazal did not combine the Isur Mitzvah or Kedushah with the Isur Ervah to remove the Zikah (in order to perform the Mitzvah of Yibum), in order to decree on the one brother because of the other; whereas when both sisters are an Isur Mitzvah or Kedushah on one of the brothers, there would be nothing to decree.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa, ha'Asurah la'Zeh Muteres la'Zeh ... ' applies to all of the fifteen Arayos listed at the beginning of the Masechta. Rav Yehudah himself disagrees. In his opinion, it only applies to the cases from Chamoso and onwards, but not to the first six cases connected with 'Bito' - because it is only possible to find such a case through rape (when two brothers raped the same woman, each one of whom then gave birth to a daughter, who became married to a second set of brothers, who then died). It will not apply to a case of marriage, because it would not be possible for one brother to marry the wife of his brother who had a daughter.

(b) Abaye agrees with the first opinion, because since the case is possible, who cares whether it is through marriage or through rape? He does not however, agree that Rebbi Chiya's principle applies by Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo - because such a case is only possible according to Rebbi Shimon (who permits an Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo if the brother had already made Yibum with her before he was born), but not according to the Rabbanan, and our Tana does not get involved in Machlokes.

(c) The case, according to Rebbi Shimon, is when Reuven and Shimon married two sisters, whilst Levi and Yehudah were married to two non-related women. Reuven dies, Yisachar is born and Levi performs Yibum. Shimon then dies, Zevulun is born and Yehudah performs Yibum with Shimon's wife. Then Levi and Yehudah die and fall to Yibum before Yisachar and Zevulun (The wife of Reuven is forbidden to Yisachar but permitted to Zevulun, whereas the wife of Shimon is permitted to Yisachar and forbidden to Zevulun).

(d) When spelling out the case, it is necessary to mention that Yehudah, the fourth brother, performed Yibum, despite the fact that the Yevamah would be permitted to Zevulun the fifth brother even if he had not done so - in order to find the case of 'ha'Asurah la'Zeh, Muteres la'Zeh' by the Tzarah as well.

8)

(a) According to the Tana Kama, if two of three brothers married two sisters, a woman and her daughter or a woman and her granddaughter, and died, the third brother must make Chalitzah and not Yibum. According to Rebbi Shimon, both women are Patur from Chalitzah too, because of the Pasuk "ve'Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tz'ror', which teaches us that two sisters etc. who become Tzaros be'Zikah - are both forbidden to the Yavam.

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

1. ... an Ervah to the Yavam - then she is forbidden to him, but he is permitted to make Yibum with her sister.
2. ... an Isur Mitzvah or an Isur Kedushah - then both Yevamos require Chalitzah but not Yibum.

(c) We have already learned above that if one of the two sisters is an Ervah on one of the brothers, he is permitted to make Yibum with the second sister. The Tana mentions it because of Rebbi Shimon - who says that the Isur of Achos Zekukaso is d'Oraysa. Consequently, he needs to inform us that we do not decree two sisters who are also Arayos, and require Yibum, to prevent people from thinking that Achos Zekukah is permitted?