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.
What is the other?

(b) Are the women 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.
How do we reconcile this with the Beraisa which permits them to marry them even if they got divorced?

(d) Alternatively, how do we establish the Beraisa, even if they had not quarreled earlier?

(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 ('Nisalmenu') refers to the earlier case of 'Meis, Haragtiv ... ', and Geirushin to 'ha'Meivi Get'.
Why could the author of our Mishnah then not be Rebbi?

(b) How do we establish our Mishnah to go like Rebbi, too?

(a) Why is it that, whereas our Mishnah permits a woman to marry the sons or the brothers of the suspected man, the Mishnah in ha'Ishah Rabah forbids the suspected man to marry the mother or the daughter of the woman concerned?

(b) Then why did the Tana mention specifically the man's son or brother, omitting his father? Does this mean that the woman is forbidden to his father?

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.
What does Rebbi Eliezer say?

(b) What will be the Din, if one of the sisters is ...

1. ... an Ervah (e.g. a mother-in-law) to one of the brothers?
2. ... a Sh'niyah or a Chayvei La'avin?

(c) Why the difference?

(d) On which case did they say 'Achosah ke'she'Hi Yevimtah, O Choletzes O Misyabemes'?

(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'.
What are the ramifications of this statement (besides the Din discussed in our Mishnah)?

(b) How do we refute the proof that 'Yesh Zikah'? Why else might Yibum be prohibited?

(c) In that case, why does the Tana speak specifically of *four* brothers, and not three, where Yibum will certainly be nullified?

(d) Why would this not be a problem if the Tana's reason was 'Yesh Zikah (va'Afilu bi'Trei Achi)'?

6)

(a) The Tana specifically states the Din of two sisters when there are *four* brothers, as we just explained.
What will be the Din if there are *five*?

(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.
Why must this mean that he holds 'Yesh Zikah'?

(c) Then why is this Din confined to the middle sister? Why not to the other two?

(d) But didn't we learn above (17b) that Rav holds 'Ein Zikah'?

(a) Shmuel rules 'Echad Choletz le'Chulan'.
What did Shmuel say with regard to two sisters who were married to two brothers, who fell before the third brother to Yibum, each one together with a Tzarah, which appears to contradict this?

(b) Seeing as the Yavam is forbidden to perform Yibum with the Tzarah no more than with the two sisters, why is it preferable to make Chalitzah with the Tzaros?

(c) So how do we reconcile Shmuel's two statements?

(d) Then why did he say 'le'Chulan'?

Next daf