1)

(a)Rav Yehudah learns from the extra 'Reish' in "li'Tzeror" - that, not only is the Tzaras Ervah forbidden, but so is the Tzaras Tzarah.

(b)Rav Ashi learns this from a Svara - inasmuch as seeing as the Tzarah is forbidden seeing because she adopts the Chumra of the Ervah, it stands to reason that, should she marry one of the other brothers, she will transmit the same Isur to her new Tzarah.

2)

(a)Our Mishnah permits Tzaras Ervah, should the Ervah become divorced before her husband's death, even if he married the Tzarah before divorcing the Ervah, according to our Tana - because he holds 'Misah Mapeles' (it is the death of the husband that causes the Yevamah to fall before his brothers to Yibum - irrespective of what happened before).

(b)The Tana of the Mishnah in ha'Choletz, on the other hand, who permits the Tzarah only if he married her after the divorce - holds 'Nisu'in ha'Rishonim Mapilim' (it is the initial marriage that causes her to fall to Yibum). Consequently, in the event that he married her before he divorced the Ervah, she immediately becomes a Tzaras Ervah.

(c)Rava establishes both Mishnayos according to the same Tana - by explaining them as 'Zu, v'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu' (our Mishnah teaches us even the case when he married the Tzarah before the divorce, and the Mishnah in ha'Choletz adds the more obvious case of when he married her after the divorce).

(d)And the Tana holds 'Misah Mapeles'.

3)

(a)According to Rebbi Oshaya, a girl can only make Mi'un on the Yavam to remove the Ma'amar that he made with her, but not to remove the Zikah. We attempt to prove this from our Mishnah, which declares that the Tzarah of any of the Arayos in our Mishnah, who could have made Mi'un but did not, requires Chalitzah - implying that she cannot make Mi'un now (to remove the Zikah).

(b)We refute this proof however - because the reason that she cannot make Mi'un now is because she looks as if she is Tzaras Bito (like the Beraisa of Rami bar Yechezkel that we cited on the previous Daf).

4)

(a)The Tana now lists six cases which are more stringent than the fifteen listed in the first Mishnah (and which we will discuss shortly) - because they are forbidden to all the brothers.

(b)Consequently - the Tzarah is permitted to the Yavam.

5)

(a)The first of these is Imo - which means 'Anusas Aviv' (and not 'Eishes Aviv', which the Tana lists independently [Bartenura - It is not clear why Rashi says 'Eishes Aviv']).

(b)One of the remaining cases is Eishes Achiv me'Aviv - who is forbidden to all the brothers because it speaks when they had children, in which case there is no Mitzvah of Yibum.

(c)Besides his father's wife and sister (and the two cases that we just discussed) - the list also incorporates his paternal sister and his father's brother's wife.

6)

(a)The author of our Mishnah to date is Beis Hillel. According to Beis Shamai ...

1. ... Tzaros Ervah in general - are permitted to the brothers.

2. ... a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Chalitzah - is forbidden to marry a Kohen.

3. ... a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Yibum - is permitted to marry a Kohen after the Yavam's death.

(b)Beis Hillel ...

1. ... permit a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Chalitzah to marry a Kohen - because her Chalitzah is unnecessary and therefore meaningless.

2. ... forbid a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Yibum to marry a Kohen - because she is a Zonah (for having had relations with a Chiyuv Kares).

(c)According to them - the child of a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Yibum is a Mamzer (like every product of Chayavei Kerisus).

(d)Despite the fact that some of the women from Beis Shamai were Mamzerim according to Beis Hillel, Beis Hillel did not desist from marrying the daughters of Beis Shamai - because they knew that Beis Shamai would inform them if that was the case, since there was complete trust between them.

7)

(a)Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel also displayed complete trust in one another - in the area of Tum'os and Taharos, where they would lend each other their household vessels, even though, in many instances, what the one declared Tahor, the other considered Tamei.

8)

(a)Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi, according to Beis Shamai, Beis Shamai, learns from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Lo Siheyeh Eishes ha'Mes ha'Chutzah l'Ish Zar" that Tzaras Ervah is permitted, because he Darshens - "Chutzah" (an external woman, who is not related to the Yavam) may not marry anyone else (when she is a Yevamah) from which we can deduce that there is an internal one [a Tzarah, who is not related]), who is permitted.

(b)Beis Hillel learn from this Pasuk - that the Kidushin of a Yevamah with another man is not valid (like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav) even though it is only a Lav, which generally is.

(c)Beis Shamai argue that the Torah does not write "ha'Chutz", but "ha'Chutzah". Beis Hillel counter that - with the principle that whenever the Torah places a 'Hey' at the end of a noun, it is as if it had written a 'Lamed' at the beginning (in which case "Chutzah" is no different than "l'Chutz", leaving us with nothing to Darshen).

9)

(a)In fact, we conclude, both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel learn that Kidushin is not effective on a Yevamah l'Shuk, from the last words in the Pasuk "l'Ish Zar". Beis Hillel learn from "ha'Chutzah" - that even a woman who falls to Yibum from the betrothal (although she was not yet close to the brother when he died) is also subject to Yibum.

(b)Beis Shamai learn this from the 'Hey' in "ha'Chutzah" - whereas Beis Hillel do not make any Derashah from the 'Hey', since they do not consider it superfluous.

(c)Rava gives the reason of Beis Shamai as 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' - meaning that the Isur of Eishes Ach does not take effect on the existing Isur of Bito (or on any of the other fourteen Arayos). Consequently, the Tzarah is the Tzarah of an Ervah she'Lo b'Makom Mitzvah, who is permitted to the Yavam, as we learned above.

(d)The Tzarah is permitted even if the brother married the Ervah only after the Yavam had married her sister, in which case the Ervah preceded that of Eishes Achiv, for the reason that we just stated: that the Isur of Eishes Ach (which takes effect only with the death of the brother (as we saw on Amud Alef) cannot come into effect because of the existing Ervah.

(e)We initially thought otherwise - assuming that the Isur Eishes Ach came first, and that that of Achos Ishah does not take effect on it.

10)

(a)The Tana needs to teach us that, even if the Tzaros performed Chalitzah, they are nevertheless permitted to a Kohen - to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who tried to institute Chalitzah for Tzaros Ervah, as we shall soon see. Had he succeeded, the Chalitzah would have disqualified them from marrying Kohanim.

(b)And he sees fit to add 'Nisyabmu, Beis Shamai Machshirin ... ' - not because it is necessary, but because, having told us the Din by 'Chaltzu', he completed the picture by telling us the Din by 'Nisyabmu', too.

11)

(a)Resh Lakish queries the opening Mishnah in Megilah, which permits reading the Megilah on different days, - based on the principle not to break the laws of the Torah into separate groups, some keeping it like this, and others, like that (which we learn from the Pasuk in Re'eh "Lo Sisgodedu" - 'Lo Sa'asu Agudos Agudos', as we shall now see).

(b)The basic source for this Derashah is - the Pasuk in Re'eh "Lo Sisgodedu" (as we shall now see).

(c)We learn from the fact that the Torah writes "Lo Sisgod'du", and not ...

1. ... "Lo Segodedu" - that this is not just a prohibition to cut oneself because someone died, but also a prohibition not to make groups ... (as we just explained).

2. ... "Lo Sagodu" - that the Pasuk is not restricted to the latter Derashah, but incorporates the former one, too.

12)

(a)Resh Lakish is not concerned about the Mishnah in Pesachim, which deals with the custom not to work on Erev Pesach until midday, which some places observe, and others do not - because the Lav is restricted to Halachos, but not to Minhagim, by which the Torah does not forbid breaking up into groups.

(b)The Mishnah regarding working on the previous night (Leil Bedikas Chametz), where some people follow the opinion of Beis Shamai (who forbid) and others, that of Beis Hillel (who permit), and which is a Halachah, and not a Minhag, is different - inasmuch as there it does not resemble two Tzoros, since someone who sees people not working, will automatically ascribe this to the fact that they have no work to do (a common enough phenomenon), rather than to a different opinion.

(c)Nor is Resh Lakish concerned with our Mishnah, where Beis Shamai permit Tzaras Ervah, whereas Beis Hillel forbid her - because, in his opinion, Beis Shamai only argued with Beis Hillel in theory, but not in practice.