1)

(a)We just concluded that, were it not for "Alehah", we would have included Yibum by Achos Ishto and all the Arayos, on account of 'Ho'il v'Ishteri Ishteri'. For 'Ho'il v'Ishteri Ishteri' to apply, his brother would have had to marry first (so that the Isur of Eishes Achiv became permitted before that of Achos Ishto.

(b)Even assuming that his brother married first, 'Ho'il v'Ishteri Ishteri' will only apply - if his brother died before he married the Yevamah's sister (so that she became permitted to him before the Isur of Achos Ishto came into effect), and we would then require "Alehah" to forbid Yibum.

(c)If he married her before his brother died - we would compare it to a case of where one saw Keri on the night preceding the eighth day of one's Tzara'as (before he was fit to bring his Korbanos), in which case Ula (who says 'Ho'il v'Ishteri, Ishteri') would agree that, on the following day, he would not be permitted to enter the Sha'ar Nikanor and place his hands inside the Azarah.

2)

(a)Alternatively, we require "Alehah" to preclude the Hekesh of Rebbi Yonah (some say of Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua) - ( i.e. the Pasuk "Ki Kol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'To'eivos ha'Eileh, v'Nichresah"), from which he learns that all the Arayos are Chayav for performing Ha'ara'ah (an incomplete Bi'ah which will be discussed later in the Masechta) from Achoso, by whom the Torah writes it explicitly. Similarly here, we would have compared all the Arayos to Eishes Achiv regarding Yibum, if not for "Alehah".

(b)The fact that by all the other Arayos one transgresses two Lavin, whereas by Eishes Achiv, one transgresses only one - is not a problem, because of the principle 'Ein Mashivin al ha'Hekesh.

(c)We compare all the Arayos to Achos Ishto (to forbid Yibum - rather than to Eishes Achiv, to permit it), for one of two reasons, either because whenever we have such an option, we always compare l'Chumra - or because by all the other Arayos, like Achos Ishto, there are two Lavin, whereas by Eishes Achiv, there is only one.

3)

(a)According to Rava, we do not need "Alehah" to preclude Achos Ishto and the other Arayos from Yibum - because he maintains (what we have been toying with throughout the Sugya) that an Aseh cannot override a Lav which carries with it Kares.

(b)And he learns from "Alehah" - that Tzaros Ervah are Patur from Yibum.

(c)Rava explains the words of ...

1. ... the Tana 'Ein Li Ela Hi' and 'Ein Li Ela Hen' - that 'Hi' and 'Hen' are not intrinsic Chidushim - but only an introduction to the Tzaros, which he then proceeds to learn.

2. ... Rebbi in another Beraisa, who requires a Pasuk 'Le'esor Tzaros va'Arayos' - by amending this to Le'esor Tzaros shel Arayos'.

(d)But Rebbi himself quotes two Pesukim! According to Rava - he learns from ...

1. ... "v'Lakach ... u'Lekachah" - the Isur of Tzaros Ervah.

2. ... "v'Yibeim ... v'Yibmah" - that the Isur of Tzaras Ervah only applies by the Mitzvah of Yibum, but not if the Ervah marries someone other than his brother.

4)

(a)Rav Ashi proves from our Mishnah, which says 'Chamesh Esrei Nashim Potros Tzaroseihen', but does not say 'Peturos' - that the Tana takes for granted that Arayos are not included in the Mitzvah of Yibum (like Rava).

(b)The problem with Rava's distinction between Ervah and Tzaras Ervah is - that bearing in mind that the Torah writes "li'Tzeror" (comparing the Tzaras Ervah to the Ervah herself), why we should need a Pasuk ("Alehah") to preclude Tzaras Ervah from Yibum any more than for the Ervah?

(c)Rav Acha bar Bibi subsequently explains - that Rava learns from "Alehah" that the Torah confines the Isur of Tzaras Ervah to a case of Yibum (b'Makom 'Alehah'), but not when the Ervah married someone other his brother.

5)

(a)We initially resolve Rami bar Chama's query as to why Rava does not learn from "Alehah" that when there is no Mitzvah of Yibum, the Ervah herself should be permitted - by learning a 'Kal va'Chomer' to counter it: If b'Makom Mitzvah she is forbidden, how much more so when it is not a Makom Mitzvah!?

(b)The snag with this answer - is from Tzaras Ervah, who is forbidden when it is a Makom Yibum, but permitted when it is not.

(c)We cannot learn that Achos Ishto (and the other Arayos) are forbidden even when there is no Mitzvah of Yibum, from "b'Chayehah" because we need "b'Chayehah" to teach us that one's wife's sister is permitted after the death of his wife.

(d)Had the Torah written only "v'Ishah el Achosah" - we would have permitted her even after having divorced one's wife (even though she is still alive).

6)

(a)Rav Huna bar Tachlifa in the name of Rava finally learns that the Arayos are forbidden when there is no Mitzvah of Yibum, from the combination of the two Pesukim "Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tzeror" - suggesting that both the Ervah and the Tzarah are forbidden, and "Legalos Ervasah" - implying that only one of them is forbidden.

(b)He reconciles them - by establishing the first Pasuk (forbidding both women) when there is a Mitzvah of Yibum, and the second (which permits one woman - the Tzarah), when there is not.

(c)We not say the reverse (to forbid both when there is no Mitzvah of Yibum, and permit the Tzarah when there is) - because we have already learned from "Alehah" that b'Makom Mitzvah is more stringent than she'Lo b'Makom Mitzvah.

(d)Neither can "Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tzeror" come to forbid both the Ervah and the Tzarah when there is no Mitzvah, and "Alehah", to permit both the Ervah and the Tzarah when there is - because then how will we explain the Pasuk "Legalos Ervasah", suggesting that there is a case where one of the women is Asur and one, Mutar.

7)

(a)Rebbi learns Tzaras Ervah, from "v'Lakach - u'Lekachah", "v'Yibem - v'Yibmah" (as we explained earlier). We query this on two scores. Firstly, where is Tzaros hinted in these Pesukim? Secondly - why does Rebbi require a new Derashah, when we already know Tzaros from "li'Tzeror"?

(b)To answer the second Kashya, we establish Rebbi like Rebbi Shimon, in Perek Arba'ah Achim. The Tana Kama there rules that if in a case of three brothers, two of whom married two sisters or a woman and her daughter, who both died and the two women fell before the Yavam - he performs Chalitzah (in order to remove the Zikah), but not Yibum (since Zikah is considered a partial Kidushin, so that each woman becomes partially like a wife's sister (though not completely, as then it would remove even the obligation of Chalitzah).

(c)Rebbi Shimon holds - that they do not even require Chalitzah either (because the Pasuk "li'Tzeror" teaches us that, when two sisters become Tzaros through a Zikah, both are forbidden min ha'Torah, and therefore do not need to make Chalitzah either).

8)

(a)In answer to the first Kashya, Rebbi Darshens "v'Lakach ... u'Lekachah" - that whenever one may take either of two women who fall to Yibum, they are permitted; but wherever one of them is forbidden, then he may not take the other one, either.

(b)He then goes on to explain "v'Yibem, v'Yibmah" - to qualify the latter ruling, confining it to b'Makom Yibum, but she'Lo b'Makom Yibum, the Tzarah is permitted.

9)

(a)The Rabanan (who learn the above from "Alehah") explain "u'Lekachah" like Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, who Darshens from there that Yibum turns the Yevamah into a proper wife, whom he may later divorce and then remarry'. We would otherwise have thought - that having performed the Mitzvah, once he divorces her, she reverts to being 'Eishes Achiv', and is forbidden to him.

(b)And from "v'Yibmah they Darshen " - 'Afilu Ba'al Korchah' (that Yibum is legal even if it is performed against her will - which, in the case of ordinary Kidushin or marriage, would not be valid).

(c)Rebbi learns Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina's Din (that should he subsequently divorce her, he is permitted to remarry her) from "u'Lekachah Lo l'Ishah". From "Yevamah Yavo Alehah" - he learns that Yibum is valid even against her will.

(d)The ramifications of 'Im Ba Alehah Ba'al Korchah, Kan'ah' (apart from the fact that he has fulfilled the Mitzvah of Yibum) - are among other things, that he inherits her and buries her when she dies (even if he happens to be a Kohen).