1)

(a)Rav Ashi explains the Beraisa currently discussion ('ha'Choletz li'Yevimto v'Chazar v'Kidshah, u'Mes, Tzerichah Chalitzah min ha'Achin') like Rsh Lakish, in which case the Seifa ('Amad Echad min ha'Achin v'Kidshah, Ein Lah Alav Klum') is no problem (as we just explained). And to answer Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya, he establishes the Reisha like R. Shimon, who holds - that brothers who are born after one brother performed Yibum, are not considered Eishes Ach she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.

(b)And that is how Rav Ashi establishes 'min ha'Achin' (in the Reisha [i.e. 'min ha'Achin ha'Yilodim').

2)

(a)Ravina, who holds like Rebbi Yochanan - interprets the Reisha 'Tzerichah Chalitzah min ha'Achin' with reference to the brothers who were already born, like the Rabanan.

(b)And he interprets the Seifa ... ', with regard to a brother who was born after the first brother performed Chalitzah or even after the second brother betrothed her ...

(c)... and the author is the Chachamim.

(d)And the reason that she does require a Get - is (not because of the Chalitzah of the first brother, but) because of Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.

3)

(a)Rav Acha and Ravina argue over Shimon who has relations with the Tzarah after Reuven has performed Yibum with the first Yevamah. One of them says that he is Chayav Kares - like Resh Lakish, who holds that the brother who performs Yibum is not a Shali'ach of the other brothers.

(b)The other one who holds that he transgresses the Aseh - of 'Bayis Echad Hu Boneh, v'Eino Boneh Beis Batim' (and a Lav that stems from an Aseh, is an Aseh) ...

(c)... follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, who holds - that the brother who performs Yibum is the Shali'ach of all the brothers.

4)

(a)According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, Tzaras Sotah is forbidden. The case is - where a woman who committed adultery (with two witnesses), and whose husband then died is Patur from both Yibum and Chalitzah.

(b)The reason for this Halachah, in spite of the fact that she is only forbidden to her husband by a Lav - is the Pasuk in Naso "v'Nisterah v'Hi Nitma'ah" (which by virtue of the word "Nitme'ah" compares her to Arayos, where it writes in Acharei-Mos "Al Titam'u b'Chol Eileh").

5)

(a)If, after hearing testimony that her husband had died, a woman remarries and her husband then appears, she is forbidden to both men. According to the Rabanan, should they both subsequently die, she requires Chalitzah from the brother of each one. Rebbi Shimon (in Perek ha'Ishah Rabah) says ...

1. ... that she is permitted to perform Yibum or Chalitzah should her first husband die (because she is an Anusah, and we do not penalize her).

2. ... that she also exempts her Tzarah from Yibum.

(b)Rav Chisda extrapolates from here that, according to the Rabanan - the Tzarah of a Sotah can even perform Yibum (because they only disagree with Rebbi Shimon with regard to the Sotah herself, but not with regard to the Tzarah).

(c)Rav reconciles this with his own ruling, that Tzaras Sotah is considered an Ervah - in that he is referring to a Vaday Sotah, which the Torah specifically forbids, whereas the Beraisa is speaking about a Sotah d'Rabanan (because min ha'Torah, a woman who marries with the Beis-Din's permission is permitted to her husband, and it is the Rabanan who forbade her in order to force her to make doubly sure before marrying someone else, that her husband is really dead).

(d)This answer appears obvious. Nevertheless, Rav Chisda queried Rav - because of the principle that whatever the Rabanan forbade, they followed the same principles as Isurim d'Oraisa. Consequently, we would have thought that just like the Tzarah of a Sotah d'Oraisa is forbidden to the Yavam, so too should a Sotah d'Rabanan be forbidden, and require only Chalitzah, but not Yibum.

6)

(a)In the case of a regular Sotah, the Torah writes the word "Nitme'ah" three times (once with a 'Vav') - once to forbid her to her husband (until she drinks the bitter water), once to forbid her to the adulterer and once to forbid her to eat Terumah.

(b)The Beraisa rules - that should her husband die before taking her to the Beis-Hamikdash, she requires Chalitzah.

(c)Here too, we answer that Rav who holds that, by a Sotah, there is no Chalitzah either is speaking about a Sotah Vaday - whereas the Beraisa is referring to a Safek Sotah.

7)

(a)The Torah writes by the Lav of Machzir Gerushaso in Ki Setzei "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah". This come to ...

1. ... preclude, according to Rebbi Yosi ben Kipar quoting Rebbi Elazar - Machzir Gerushaso min ha'Erusin.

2. ... include, according to the Chachamim (who do not differentiate between Machzir Gerushaso min ha'Nisu'in and Machzir Gerushaso min ha'Erusin) - Tzaras Sotah.

(b)The Rabanan learn from the Pasuk there "v'Hayesah l'Ish Acher" - that it makes no difference whether the woman married the second man or whether she was only betrothed to him, either way, she is forbidden to return to her first husband when the second one dies.

(c)According to Rav, who just argued that a Safek Sotah must make Chalitzah because it is only by a Sotah Vaday that the Torah mentions Tum'ah - will explain that, when the Rabanan learned a Lav by Sotah she'Nisterah from "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah", they meant Sotah she'Niv'elah ...

(d)... and they only said Sotah she'Nisterah, in order to use a more modest expression.

(e)Despite the fact that the Torah has already written "v'Nisterah v'Hi Nitme'ah" - it nevertheless needs to add the Pasuk "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah" - in order to turn it into a Lav ("Lo Yuchal ... ") which is not mentioned by the Pasuk in Naso.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yosi ben Kipar states that the Torah writes by Machzir Gerushaso 'Havayah v'Ishus' - meaning that the Torah writes by her "v'Yatz'ah v'Hayesah l'Ish Acher", and that is when there is a Lav on the husband ("Lo Yuchal ... ").

(b)But not, he extrapolates - in the case of a Stam Sotah, whom the husband did not divorce. Note, that according to the text of the G'ra, Rebbi Yosi ben Kipar precludes a divorcee who committed adultery without actually marrying the adulterer - in which case, her husband is permitted to remarry her).

9)

(a)Rav Yehudah asked Rav Sheshes whether, according to the Rabanan, the brother of a Machzir Gerushaso mi'she'Nises is Chayav to perform Yibum with her Tzarah. This She'eilah is confined to the Rabanan. According to Rebbi Yosi ben Kipar however - it is obvious that her Tzarah has the same Din as she has (like a Tzaras Ervah), since the Torah writes Tum'ah in in connection with her.

(b)Rebbi Yosi ben Kipar will then extrapolate from the Pasuk "To'eivah Hi" - that "Hi" To'eivah, 've'Ein Banehah To'eivin' (thereby permitting her daughter to marry a Kohen).

(c)According to the Rabanan, "To'eivah Hi" might apply to Machzir Gerushaso too, despite the fact that, in their opinion, it refers to a Vaday Sotah - because of the principle 'Ein Mikra Yotzei mi'Yedei Peshuto' ('The simple context of the Pasuk remains intact').

(d)On the other hand, it might not - because of the possibility that 'Keivan d'I'akar I'akar' ('Once the Torah takes something out of its simple context, it is out for good').

10)

(a)Alternatively, the She'eilah is confined to Rebbi Yosi ben Kipar, but, according to the Rabanan, it is obvious that 'Keivan d'I'akar I'akar. The She'eilah will then be - whether "To'eivah Hi comes to preclude his children (exclusively, as we learned above) or his wife.

(b)We try to resolve the She'eilah from a Mishnah in ha'Choletz: 'Hayesah Achas Kesheirah, v'Achas Pesulah, Im Hayah Choletz, Choletz li'Pesulah, v'Im Hayah Meyabem, Meyabem li'Kesherah'. We initially assume that Kesheirah and Pesulah cannot mean 'l'Alma' (to others, but not to him) - because, if the two women are permitted to him, then why should he not perform Yibum or Chalitzah with whichever one he wishes?

(c)In that case - the Beraisa must mean that one of the women is permitted to him, the other is forbidden, because of Machzir Gerushaso, from which we can see that Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso is permitted (in spite of the fact that the Torah uses the Lashon Tum'ah there).

(d)The Beraisa cannot be referring to the Tzarah of an ordinary Chayavei Lavin such as Gerushah li'Kohen Hedyot - because that would not be a Chidush (seeing as the Torah has not compared her to Chayavei Kerisus by writing 'Tum'ah' by her).

11)

(a)We refute this proof however, by re-instating the Mishnah by Kesheirah and Pesulah to mean 'l'Alma', dismissing our initial objection by establishing it like Rav Yosef - who says that Rebbi is teaching us in this Mishnah that a person should not pour out the water of his pit, should others have a need for them. What the Mishnah now means is that, since it makes no difference to him which woman he is Choletz, he should rather do so with the woman who is Pesulah, thereby leaving the Kesheirah free to marry a Kohen; whereas had he been Choletz the Kesheirah, both women would have then been forbidden to a Kohen.

(b)So we try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa 'ha'Machazir Gerushaso mi'she'Nises, Hi v'Tzarasah Choletzes'. This is obviously a printing error - because either she or the Tzarah require Yibum or Chalitzah, but not both.

(c)We refute the suggested text 'O Hi O Tzarasah Choletzes' (which would resolve our She'eilah one way) - by pointing out that, since the text must be emended anyway, we might also emend it to read 'Hi Choletzes, Tzarasah, O Choletzes O Misyabemes' (which would resolve it the other way).

12)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan posed the same She'eilah as Rav Yehudah (whether Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso is subject to Yibum or not). He did not ask the same She'eilah regarding the Gerushah herself - because he considered it obvious that, if she is forbidden to her former husband, to whom she was previously permitted, she should certainly be forbidden to the Yavam, to whom she was not.

(b)The She'eilah, according to him - is whether the Kal va'Chomer is strong enough to push away the Tzarah as well, or not.

(c)According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Rebbi Yochanan posed the She'eilah regarding the Gerushah herself - whether we can apply the above 'Kal va'Chomer' in face of the Mitzvah of Yibum, or not.

(d)He did not pose it with regard to the Tzarah - because it was obvious to him that the 'Kal va'Chomer' is not strong enough to forbid the Tzarah, too.