1)

(a)We try to resolve Rebbi Yochanan's She'eilah (regarding whether a Machzir Gerushaso [according to the second Lashon] or her Tzarah [according to the first] are subject to Yibum), from the same Mishnah that we quoted in trying to resolve Rav Yehudah's: 'Hayesah Achas Kesheirah, v'Achas Pesulah, Im Hayah Choletz, Choletz li'Pesulah, v'Im Hayah Meyabem, Meyabem li'Kesherah' - resolving the She'eilah according to both Leshonos.

(b)We refute the proof from there like we did earlier - by establishing Kesheirah and Pesulah to mean 'le'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 (as we explained according to Rav Yehudah).

(c)We also try to resolve it from the same Beraisa as we quoted there ('ha'Machazir Gerushaso mi'she'Nises, Hi v'Tzarasah Choletzes') and we refute it - on the same grounds as we did there.

(d)The She'eilah therefore - remains unresolved.

2)

(a)If a woman performs Mi'un on her Yavam, the other brothers may perform Yibum either ...

1. ... with her Tzarah, or ...

2. ... with her.

(b)The reason for the latter Din is (basically, because the Mi'un uproots the Zikah, so that she is no longer Eishes Achiv, and) - because they did not perform an act with her.

(c)Shmuel declares Tzaras Mema'enes to be forbidden to the brother on whom her Tzarah made Mi'un (despite the fact that he did not perform an act with her either) - because it is similar to Tzaras Bito Mema'enes, who is forbidden (even after the Mi'un), because, at the time when she fell to Yibum, she appeared to be Tzaras Bito.

(d)We query this however, from our Mishnah 'v'Chulan, Im ... Mi'anu O Nisgarshu, Tzaroseihen Mutaros', which we initially think, must refer to the Yavam and not the husband - because otherwise it is synonymous with 'Nisgarshu'.

(e)We counter that argument, however, and establish it with regard to the husband, and the Tana mentions two kinds of Gerushin.

3)

(a)The above Din is rooted in the Beraisa learned by Rami bar Yechezkel, which declares that a girl who makes Mi'un on her husband, is permitted to his father; whereas if, after her husband died, she made Mi'un to her Yavam, she is forbidden to him - because at the time that she fell to Yibum, she appeared to be his daughter-in-law.

4)

(a)Rav Asi learns from the Pasuk "v'Hayah ha'Bechor Asher Teled" - that an Aylonis (who cannot have children) is not subject to Yibum, which means that she is Asur to the Yavam because of Eishes Achiv, exempting her Tzarah from Yibum too.

(b)A barren woman is called 'Aylonis' - because she is like a ram (a male who cannot have children).

5)

(a)Rav Sheshes queries Rav Asi from a Beraisa, which discusses three brothers who are married to three unrelated women; one of them dies, and the second one performed Ma'amar - (Kidushin mid'Rabanan that a Yavam needs to make with his Yevamah before performing Yibum with her).

(b)The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "u'Mes Achad Meihem, Yevamah Yavo Alehah" - that a Yavam who made Ma'amar with his Yevamah, and died, leaving her and another wife to his brother, the remaining brother cannot make Yibum with her, because a Yavam only performs Yibum with a woman who has the Zikah of one Yavam, but not one who has the Zikah of two.

(c)The Tzarah cannot perform Yibum either - because she is like a Tzaras Ervah).

(d)Both Tzaros require Chalitzah - because in fact, they have fallen from two different brothers (since the Ma'amar d'Rabanan cannot remove the Zikah that remains from the first brother).

(e)Initially, we extrapolate from Rebbi Yosi (see Mesores ha'Shas), who concludes that this the only case where the Isur Nefilah causes her to be Asur - that this comes to preclude Tzaras Aylonis, who is permitted (posing a Kashya on Rav Asi, who forbids Tzaras Aylonis).

6)

(a)We refute the Kashya however - by explaining that Rebbi Yosi means to preclude Tzaras Aylonis, who is also forbidden, but who does not require Chalitzah either (proving Rav Asi right).

(b)Despite the fact that both of the above cases are Asur even though there is no Isur Ervah, the case in the Beraisa is Chayav Chalitzah - because the Petur Yibum is only mid'Rabanan (and the Pasuk that the Tana quotes is an Asmachta) - whereas that of Rav Asi is Patur even from Chalitzah, because she is Patur mid'Oraisa (from the Pasuk "Asher Teled").

(c)Rav Asi will reconcile his ruling with our Mishnah, which explicitly states 've'Chulan, Im ... Mi'anu ... Tzaroseihen Mutaros' - by establishing it in a case, where at the time that he married his wife, he did not know that she was an Aylonis (in which case, the Kidushin later becomes nullified retroactively) - whereas Rav Asi speaks when he knew that she was an Aylonis when they got married.

(d)We prove this from the Lashon of the Mishnah, which says 'v'Chulan ... O she'Nimtze'u Aylonis' (rather than 'she'Hayu'), implying that he did not know it previously, and that if he did, the Tzarah would remain forbidden).

7)

(a)Rava disagrees with Rav Asi's Derashah on "Asher Teled"). According to him - a Tzaras Aylonis is permitted even if he did know beforehand that she was an Aylonis.

(b)He dispenses with the inference that we just brought from the Lashon of our Mishnah 'she'Nimtze'u Aylonis' (that if he knew that she was an Aylonis, the Tzarah would remain Asur) - by amending 'she'Nimtze'u' to 'v'Hayu'.

(c)Rava's reason is - because, seeing as even if she would not be considered an Ervah, she would not be fit to perform Yibum, she is like a Tzaras Ervah she'Lo b'Makom Mitzvah, who does not exempt her Tzarah from Yibum, as we learned earlier.

(d)When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he brought with him a series of rulings from Rebbi Yochanan - who ruled that the Yavam may perform Yibum with the Tzarah of a Mema'enes, an Aylonis and a Machzir Gerushaso.

8)

(a)Rav Bibi cites a Beraisa in front of Rav Nachman, permitting a Ketanah, a pregnant woman and a feeding mother to use a cloth to avoid becoming pregnant, according to Rebbi Meir (in the opinion of Tosfos DH 'Shalosh, they are even obligated to do so). This is because ...

1. ... a Ketanah - might become pregnant, in which case she is in danger of dying.

2. ... a pregnant woman - might become pregnant again, and the second fetus will squash the first one and kill it.

3. ... a feeding mother - might become pregnant, and will wean her baby prematurely due to her pregnancy.

(b)A Ketanah constitutes the ages of eleven and twelve (because before eleven, she cannot become pregnant, and after twelve, she is not in danger of dying).

(c)The Rabanan disagree with Rebbi Meir - in the case of a Ketanah. Based on the Pasuk in Tehilim "Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m", they allow her to be Meshamesh normally, and Hash-m will look after her.

9)

(a)We deduce from the Lashon 'Shema Tis'aber v'Shema Tamus' - that it is possible for a Ketanah to become pregnant and not die.

(b)In that case, we ask - we can have a case of a mother-in-law making Mi'un (if someone married her baby daughter whom she bore when she was eleven, after which she made Mi'un, still before turning twelve). But this clashes with our Mishnah, which states that it is impossible ('I Ata Yachol Lomar ba'Chamoso ... she'Nimtze'u Aylonis O she'Mema'enes').

(c)To avoid this problem - we emend the Beraisa to read 'Shema Tis'aber v'Tamus'(implying that if she becomes pregnant, she will definitely die).

(d)This also conforms with the words of Rabah bar Liva'i - who says that before the age of eleven, a girl cannot become pregnant, from eleven to twelve, she can, but she and the baby will die; whereas from the age of twelve, both she and the baby can live.

10)

(a)This amendment is not acceptable however, according to the text of Rabah bar Shmuel, who adds to the wording in our Mishnah 'I Ata Yachol Lomar ba'Chamoso ... she'Nimtze'u Aylonis O she'Mema'enes' - 'she'Kvar Yaldu' (even though, from the fact that he did not say 'she'Kvar Gadlu', it clearly speaks when she is still a Ketanah).

(b)According to Rav Safra, a Ketanah who bore a child and did not die, cannot perform Mi'un - because bearing children even before coming of age, is as good a sign of Gadlus as Simanim [two hairs together with coming of age, that normally serve as a sign of Gadlus].

(c)In the second Lashon, children are even better than Simanim (two hairs) according to Rebbi Yehudah - because they prove that she is a Gedolah (who can no longer perform Mi'un), whereas if she just brought Simanim, she could, until a lot of hair grows.

(d)Rav Zevid holds 'Ein Banim b'Lo Simanim' - meaning that a girl who gave birth must have brought Simanim, and once she brings Simanim she can no longer perform Mi'un (even if she is still a Ketanah). According to Rav Safra 'Toch ha'Zman k'Lifnei ha'Zman', and Simanim that appear before a Katan comes of age, do not transform him into a Gadol - whereas Rav Zevid holds 'Toch ha'Zman k'l'Achar ha'Zman', and they do.

11)

(a)Examining her to see if there are Simanim or not, will not achieve anything - because we suspect that the hairs may have fallen out.

(b)Even those who do not normally contend with the possibility that the Simanim may have fallen out, will agree in this case that we do - because the birth-pains may have caused them to do so.