1)

(a)Rava citing Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi, learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...

1. ... "Henah" "Henah" (by Bito me'Ishto and Bito me'Anusaso) - that in the same way as by Bito me'Ishto, his daughter is forbidden just like his granddaughter (both of which are explicitly written in the Pasuk), so too, is Bito me'Anusaso (which is not explicitly written) forbidden just like his granddaughter (which is).

2. ... "Zimah" "Zimah" (from Chamoso) - that Bito me'Ishto carries a Chiyuv Sereifah.

(b)He learns that Bito me'Anusaso is sentenced to burning, too - from "Henah" "Henah".

(c)If, as we just suggested, the Tana prefers what is learned from a Derashah - then he ought to have placed Achos Ishto last (since it is the only case which is not learned from a Derashah.

(d)Neither will it help to say that the Tana did not do so in order to include Achos Ishto together with the other cases of 'Achvasa', which appear earlier - because then he should rather have rearranged the other cases of Achvasa, to place them last together with Achos Ishto.

2)

(a)We finally explain the order of our Mishnah - in order of closeness: 1. his daughter and granddaughters - who are his own flesh and blood; 2. his wife's daughter and granddaughters - because after mentioning his own relatives, it follows that the Tana mentions his wife's (corresponding ones); 3. his mother-in-law, her mother and his father-in-law's mother - because having mentioned three generations down from his wife, it follows logically to mention the three corresponding generations upwards; 4. his sister and mother's sister - who are his own blood relatives, before his daughter-in-law, who is not; 5. his wife's sister - because she is also a case of Achvasa, about whom e are currently speaking.

(b)The Tana ought to have placed Kalaso before Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo and Eishes Achiv me'Imo - because, seeing as none of them are blood-relatives, the Tana should have given preference to Kalaso, which is the most stringent of that group.

(c)He nevertheless inverts the order, placing Kalaso last - because the other two are cases of Achvah (and therefore are more closely connected with the previous cases of Achvasa).

(d)The Tana omits the case of Imo - because she is forbidden to all his brothers because of Eishes Aviv (which is why she appears in the next Mishnah).

3)

(a)The Tana uses the Lashon 'Potros' and not 'Osros' - because 'Osros' would imply that although the Tzarah is Patur from Yibum, she nevertheless remains Chayav to perform Chalitzah (which she is not).

(b)We object to the suggestion that the Tana ought then to have written 'Asurah la'Chelotz' - on the grounds that there does not seem to be any reason to forbid Chalitzah.

(c)We nevertheless justify it - inasmuch as if we allow Chalitzah, we are afraid that he may come to perform Yibum.

(d)And the reason that the Tana nevertheless says 'Potros' rather than 'Asurah la'Chelotz' is - to make it clear that it is only in the case of Yibum (when it is the brother who married them) that the Tzaros of the fifteen women are forbidden, but not if someone else married them and died.

(e)Someone who made Yibum with one of the Tzaros in our Mishnah would be transgressing - Eishes Achiv.

4)

(a)The Tana finds it necessary to mention that they are exempt from Chalitzah as well as from Yibum. This is on account of the principle - that whoever is subject to Yibum is subject to Chalitzah, whilst whoever is Patur from the former, is Patur from the latter.

(b)'Choletzes v'Lo Misyabemes' applies - to cases of Safek (see also Mahadura Basra).

5)

(a)The author of our Mishnah, which places Chalitzah before Yibum - is Aba Shaul, who holds that the Mitzvah of Chalitzah takes precedent over that of Yibum.

(b)This is - because he is afraid that the Yavam will make Yibum for an ulterior motive, and, in his opinion, this will be akin to transgressing Eishes Achiv she'Lo b'Makom Mitzvah, and the child will be close to being a Mamzer (as we shall see in Perek ha'Choletz es Yevimto).

(c)According to the Rabanan - the Mitzvah of Yibum takes precedence over that of Chalitzah.

6)

(a)The Tana begins with 'Fifteen women' (even though we can count them ourselves), and ends with 'Harei Eilu Potros ... ' to preclude 1. Rav - who says that if a man had two wives, one of whom committed adultery (to become a Sotah - who is forbidden to her husband) and her husband died without children, then both she and her Tzarah are forbidden to the Yavam; 2. Rav Asi - who says the same thing with regard to a man who had two wives, one of whom was an Aylonis (that should he die without children, both women are Patur from Yibum).

(b)According to Rav and Rav Asi, the Mishnah comes to preclude one or both of (depending whether they hold like each other or not) Tzaras Mema'enes and Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso. The case of ...

1. ... a Tzaras Mema'enes - is when a Yesomah who's mother or brothers married her off to Reuven's brother performs Mi'un on Reuven (the Yavam) after her husband's death.

2. ... a Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso - is when his brother divorced his wife, and re-married her (be'Isur) after someone else had married her and died.

(c)Chazal forbade Tzaras Mema'enes because of Tzaras Bito Mema'enes, who is forbidden because, at the time when she fell to Yibum (before her Tzarah made Mi'un with her father), she appeared to be Tzaras Bito.

(d)Our Mishnah, on the other hand, does not include Tzaras Mema'enes & Tzaras Gerushaso - because, seeing as the Isur is only mid'Rabanan, the Tzarah is Chayav to perform Chalitzah (whereas all the cases in our Mishnah are Patur from Chalitzah, too, as we explained on Amud Aleph).

(e)According to Rav and Rav Asi, the Tana does not insert Tzaras Sotah and Tzaras Aylonis in our Mishnah - because Tzaras Tzarah, which applies to all the cases in our Mishnah, will not apply to them (seeing as both Sotah and Aylonis are forbidden to all the brothers, none of whom are therefore permitted to marry them.

7)

(a)We learn from ...

1. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yevamah Yavo Alehah" "v'Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tzeror Alehah b'Chayehah" - that just as the former speaks in place of a Mitzvah, so too, does the latter; and still the Pasuk writes "Lo Sikach", to teach us that one cannot perform Yibum with one's wife's sister (during the lifetime of one's wife [even though it is a Mitzvah]).

2. ... the extra Reish in "li'Tzeror" - that Tzaras Tzarah is forbidden, just like Tzaras Ervah herself (and so too, are any number of Tzaros of Tzaros).

(b)We learn that the other fourteen cases in our Mishnah are Asur to the Yavam by means of a Binyan Av from Achos Ishah. They are all similar to Achos Ishah - inasmuch as they, like she, are Arayos, are Chayav Kares b'Meizid and Chatas b'Shogeg.

8)

(a)If one of the six Arayos listed in the next Mishnah (on Daf 13a: mother, father's wife, father's sister, paternal sister, father's brother's wife and paternal brother's wife) married someone else (not one's brother), and her husband died - one is permitted to marry the Tzarah should her husband die, because, unlike all the cases in the first Mishnah, they are forbidden to all the brothers, and it is only when she falls to all the brothers and is forbidden to him alone, that the Tzarah is forbidden.

(b)She is not forbidden because of Tzaras Ervah - because the Din of Tzaras Ervah is determined by the Isur Eishes Ach exclusively. When however, she is forbidden to all the brothers because of another Ervah, then there is no Din of Tzaras Ervah.

(c)We now know the Isur of performing Yibum with an Ervah or a Tzaras Ervah from "li'Tzeror". The punishment - we learn from the Pasuk there "Ki Chol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'To'evos ha'Eleh ... v'Nichresu ... ".

9)

(a)We learned earlier that if not for the word "Alehah", one's wife's sister would have been subject to Yibum. Initially, we justify the 'Havah Amina' - on the basis of the principle 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'.

(b)We immediately refute it however - on the grounds that an Aseh can only override an ordinary Lav, but not one that carries with it a Chiyuv Kares (like that of Achos Ishah).

10)

(a)We learn from the juxtaposition of the two Pesukim in Ki Setzei "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez. Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach" - that the Mitzvah of Tzitzis (under certain circumstances) overrides the Lav of Sha'atnez.

(b)We learn from ...

1. ... there the principle - of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' (that an Aseh overrides a 'Lo Sa'aseh').

2. ... from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Semuchim la'Ad l'Olam ... " - that we Darshen two consecutive phrases in two Pesukim like one Darshens them in one Pasuk (in the form of a 'Hekesh').