(Continuation of Mishnah): If one Yevamah was Kesherah (to Kehunah), and the other was Pesulah, if he does Chalitzah, he does it with the Pesulah. If he does Yibum, he does so with the Kesherah [if he wants].

(Gemara) Question: Can it be that there were only four brothers? (If so, who survived to do Yibum?!)

Correction: The Mishnah means, four of the brothers...

(Mishnah): He may do Yibum to all four if he wants...

Question: We would discourage him (because he will not be able to support them)!

(Beraisa): "The elders of his city call to him" - themselves, and not their messengers. "And they speak to him" - they give him proper counsel;

If the Yavam is young and the Yevamah is old or vice-versa, they discourage Yibum - 'marry someone your own age, and do not invite quarrels into your home'.

Answer: If he can support four wives, we allow him to do Yibum to all four.

Question: If he is able, he can do Yibum with even more!

Answer: Proper counsel is not to exceed four, so each will have Bi'ah with him (one Shabbos) every month.

(Mishnah): If a man was married to two women...

Question: Why can't the Yavam do Yibum to both?

Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba): "Who will not build the house of his brother" - he builds one house, but not two.

Suggestion: Let him do Chalitzah to both!

Rejection (Mar Zutra bar Tuvya): "The house of the one whose shoe was removed" - he does Chalitzah to one house, but not two.

Suggestion: Let him do Yibum to one, and Chalitzah to the other!

Answer #1: "If he does not want" Chalitzah is only for one who could do Yibum if he wanted.

Answer #2: We do not want people to say that a house is partially built and partially Chalutz.

Question: What is wrong if they say that?

Answer: If they would do Yibum first, there would be no problem. We are concerned lest they do Chalitzah and then Yibum, transgressing "(Since he did not build), he may not build".

Suggestion: We should say (learn from the singular "house") that there is a Mitzvah of Yibum when there is one Yevamah, but not when there are two Yevamos!

Question: If so, why did the Torah need to forbid Tzaras Ervah?

If Yibum and Chalitzah never apply to two Yevamos, all Tzaros are exempt!

Answer: It needs to teach about Tzaras Ervah. One might have thought that it is as if the Ervah did not fall to Yibum, so the Tzarah may do Yibum!

Answer: The verse says "Yevimto" twice, teaching that Yibum applies even when there are two Yevamos.

(Mishnah): If one Yevamah... (he does Chalitzah with the Pesulah).

(Rav Yosef): In this Mishnah, Rebbi taught that one should not spill his well water if others need it (Chalitzah to the Kesherah would disqualify her to a Kohen).

(Mishnah - R. Akiva): If one was Machazir Gerushaso (remarried his ex-wife after she married someone else), or married his Chalutzah or Krovas Chalutzaso (one of her close relatives), he must divorce her. The child is a Mamzer;

Chachamim say that the child is not a Mamzer. They agree that if he married the relative of his ex-wife that the child is a Mamzer.

(Gemara) Question: Does R. Akiva really hold that a Mamzer results from marrying Krovas Chalutzaso?

(Reish Lakish): Rebbi taught (in the Mishnah 41a) that the sister of Chalutzaso is forbidden only mid'Rabanan!

Correction: The Mishnah should say that Krovas Gerushaso.

Support (Seifa): Chachamim agree that Krovas Gerushaso produces a Mamzer.

It is reasonable to say that Chachamim admit only if R. Akiva discussed this case.

Question: Perhaps Chachamim come to teach that Mamzerim result from Chayavei Kerisus!

Answer: Another Mishnah (49a) already teaches this:

(Mishnah - R. Akiva): All Chayavei Lavin produce Mamzerim;

R. Shimon ha'Temani says, Chayavei Kerisus produce Mamzerim. This is the Halachah.

Question: Perhaps our Mishnah gives R. Shimon ha'Temani's opinion Stam (anonymously, to show that this is the law)!

Rejection: If so, it should teach other Chayavei Kerisus. Surely, it taught Krovas Gerushaso because R. Akiva discussed this case.

Objection: We need not say that R. Akiva discussed it! Rather, since he discussed Machazir Gerushaso, Chalutzaso and Krovas Chalutzaso, Chachamim teach about the Krovas Gerushaso!

(We need not change the text of the Mishnah.) R. Akiva holds that Krovas Chalutzaso produces Mamzerim.

(R. Chiya bar Aba): He learns from "Beis Chalutz ha'Na'al" - the Torah calls Chalutzaso 'Beiso' (as if she was his wife).

(Rav Yosef): All agree that the child of Machazir Gerushaso is Pagum to (disqualified from) Kehunah.

Question: Who agrees?

Answer: Shimon ha'Temani agrees;

Even though R. Shimon ha'Temani says that Chayavei Lavin do not produce Mamzerim, a Kal va'Chomer teaches that the child is Pagum.

The Isur of a widow to a Kohen Gadol is not Shavah b'Chol, yet the child is Pagum. The Isur of Machazir Gerushaso applies to everyone, all the more so the child is Pagum!

Objection #1: One cannot learn from a widow to a Kohen Gadol, since she herself becomes a Chalalah!

Objection #2: It says about Machazir Gerushaso "She is an abomination", i.e. but her children are not!

Objection #3 (Beraisa - R. Akiva): If one was Machazir Gerushaso, married Chalutzaso or Krovas Chalutzaso, Ein Kidushin Tofsin (Kidushin does not take effect) and she does not need a Get. She is Pesulah and her child is Pasul, and we force him to expel her;

Chachamim say, Kidushin takes effect, she needs a Get, she is Kesherah and her child is Kosher.

Suggestion: 'Her child is Kosher', i.e. to Kehunah!

Answer (to Objection #3): No, he is Kosher to Kahal (to marry Yisraelim).

Question: You cannot say that 'She is Kesherah' means to Kahal! Obviously, Bi'as Isur does not disqualify her to Kahal!

Rather, we must say that she is Kesherah to Kehunah, and also her child is Kosher to Kehunah.

Answer: We need not say so! The Beraisa teaches her status regarding Kehunah, and her child's status regarding Kahal!

Support (Beraisa - R. Akiva): She is Pesulah and her son is Pasul.

We cannot say that she is Pesulah to Kahal. Bi'as Isur does not disqualify her from the congregation! Rather, it must be, to Kehunah.

We cannot say that her child is Pasul to Kehunah, but he is Kosher to Kahal, for R. Akiva says that the child is a Mamzer! Rather, he is disqualified to Kahal.

Conclusion: The Reisha discuss disqualification to different groups, and the same applies to the Seifa.

Answer (to Objection #2): "She is an abomination" teaches that her Tzarah is not an abomination. Her children are abominations.

We have yet to answer Objection #1 - we cannot learn from a widow married to a Kohen Gadol, since she herself is defiled.

Retraction: Rather, Rav Yosef learned as follows: All agree that the child of Chayavei Kerisus is Pagum.

Question: Who agrees?

Answer: R. Yehoshua agrees. Even though he says that Mamzerim do not come from Chayavei Kerisos, he agrees that the child is Pagum;

He learns from a Kal va'Chomer from a widow to a Kohen Gadol. Even though this Isur is not Shavah b'Chol, the child is Pagum. Chayavei Kerisos are Shavah b'Chol, all the more so the child is Pagum!

Question: We cannot learn from a widow, for she herself becomes defiled.

Answer: Here also, she becomes a Zonah (and is forbidden to Kehunah).