1)

(a)We just proved from the Mishnah in Arba'ah Achin that Rebbi Shimon is not sure whether Zikah (together with Ma'amar) is Koneh or not (how much more so can we not say with certainty that Zikah on its own is Koneh). But we counter this by asking that perhaps really, Ma'amar is Koneh in his opinion, and the reason that he requires Chalitzah on the second Yevamah is because of a decree - that people might otherwise think that when two Yevamos fall to Yibum at the same time from two different houses, the first one only requires Yibum and the second one is Patur.

(b)We refute this suggestion - on the grounds that Rebbi Shimon himself ascribes his opinion to a Safek as to whether Ma'amar is Koneh or not (and not due to a decree).

(c)So Abaye tries to resolve the discrepancy between our theory that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Zikah ki'Chenusah', and the Mishnah in Arba'ah Achin - by restricting Rebbi Shimon's Sevara of 'Zikah ki'Chenusah' to a case of where there is one Yavam, but not where there are two.

2)

(a)We counter Abaye's suggestion however, from the Beraisa 'Klal Amar Rebbi Shimon; Kol she'ha'Leidah Kodemes l'Nisu'in, Lo Choletzes v'Lo Misyabemes; Nisu'in Kodem l'Leidah, O Choletzes O Misyabemes'. What makes us assume that the Tana is talking about one Yavam, yet he rules ' ... Lo Choletzes v'Lo Misyabemes' [dismissing the suggestion that he is talking about two Yavmin] - is the fact that in the Seifa, he moves on to 'Nisu'in Kodmin l'Leidah' (rather than differentiating between one Yavam and two Yevamin, like Abaye).

(b)We counter that by establishing the entire Beraisa by two Yevamin (i.e. and the Tana is not interested in discussing the equivalent when there is one Yavam.

(c)We object to this answer on the grounds that - if the Din by one Yavam the Beraisa holds 'O Choletzes O Misyabemes', then how can he present the Reisha as a Klal?!

3)

(a)Furthermore, Rav Oshaya queries Abaye from a Mishnah in Arba'ah Achin, where the Tana Kama says that if two out of three brothers were married to two sisters, or a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her granddaughter (the daughter of her son or of her daughter) and died, both women require Chalitzah. Based on the Pasuk "v'Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tzror" - Rebbi Shimon says whenever two sisters (or two other blood relatives) become Tzaros through the Zikah (like in this case), they are Patur from both Yibum and Chalitzah.

(b)Rav Oshaya now asks on Abaye from this Mishnah - in that according to him, the Yavam should be able to perform Yibum with the Yevamah that fell first, and the second one should be exempt!

(c)We reject Rav Amram's suggestion that Rebbi Shimon does indeed only exempt the Yevamah that fell second to the Yavam, but not the one who fell first - on the basis of another Beraisa, in which Rebbi Shimon explicitly exempts both women from Yibum altogether.

4)

(a)Rava tried to answer 'Sheniyah she'b'Zug Zeh u'Sheniyah she'b'Zug Zeh' - because he thought that the Beraisa was talking when the two brothers married all the pairs mentioned there: the two sisters, the mother and daughter, the woman and her son's daughter and the woman and her daughter's daughter. Then both brothers died and all four pairs fell to the third brother for Yibum.

(b)Besides the fact that the Mishnah explicitly writes 'O' between each of the cases (and not 'u') - according to Rava, the Tana of the Beraisa ought to have then said 'Rebbi Shimon Poter b'Arba'tan' and not 'bi'Shteihen'.

(c)Furthermore, based on Rebbi Shimon's Derashah from the Pasuk "v'Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tzror" (that sisters who become Tzaros through the Zikah are Patur even from Chalitzah) - it is clear that he does not hold 'Zikah ki'Chenusah' even by one Yavam (because if he did, then the first of the two sisters to fall, should require Yibum).

5)

(a)Rav Ashi reinstates our original suggestion, that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Zikah ki'Chenusah', by establishing Rebbi Shimon like Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili - who says that it is possible for two animals in the same litter to be born at exactly the same moment. Likewise, we establish the Mishnah and the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon (who holds like Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili) when both Yevamos fell to Yibum simultaneously; that is when he exempts the two sisters from Yibum.

(b)According to Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili, if an animal gives birth for the first time to a litter of two babies simultaneously, both babies must be given to the Kohen. The Rabanan say - that the owner must give one of them to the Kohen, and the other one must be allowed to graze until it obtains a blemish, when the owner may redeem and eat it.

6)

(a)Rav Papa disagrees with Rav Oshaya (who maintained on the previous Amud that Rebbi Shimon argues with the Rabanan in our Mishnah even in the Reisha [by Nolad v'Achar Kach Yibem]). According to him, the Tana needs to mention the Reisha (according to the Chachamim) - in the form of 'Lo Zu Af Zu', meaning that it is the way of the Mishnah to mention the smaller Chidush first, and then to add the bigger Chidush afterwards.

(b)We prove Rav Papa's opinion from the last case in the Beraisa, which cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon by 'Yibem v'li'b'Sof Nolad Lo Ach' - because it can only be in order to establish in which case Rebbi Shimon argues, that the Tana mentions this as a separate case. According to Rebbi Meir, who does not differentiate between whether the Yibum preceded the birth of the third son or not, it would not be necessary to mention it as a separate case.

7)

(a)The first case in the Beraisa exempts the third brother to perform Yibum with the wife of the second, but not with the Yevamah who fell from the first brother, and with whom the second brother wanted to make Ma'amar, but did not manage to. What the Tana is coming to teach us is - that Ma'amar without the consent of the Yevamah is invalid, like the Rabanan of Rebbi.

(b)According to Rebbi - the Ma'amar that a Yavam makes without the Yevamah's consent is valid, because he learns Ma'amar from the Bi'ah of Yibum (which acquires even without it); according to the Rabanan, it is not valid, because they learn it from regular Kidushin, which does not.

(c)We learn that ...

1. ... Yibum may be performed even without the consent of the Yevamah - from "v'Yibmah" (as we learned in the first Perek)

2. ... Kidushin can only be performed with the woman's consent - from "v'Halchah v'Hayesah l'Ish Acher" (implying of her own free will).

8)

(a)Rebbi Shimon, who says 'Bi'asah O Chalitzasah shel Achas Meihen Poteres Tzarasah', must coming to argue, not on the case of 'Nolad Lo Ach, v'Achar Kach Asah Bah Ma'amar' but on that of 'Asah Bah Ma'amar v'Achar Kach Nolad Lo Ach' - because we have already learned that, if the third brother was born before Yibum (and certainly before Ma'amar) was performed, then Rebbi Shimon concedes to the Chachamim that the Yevamah remains forbidden.

(b)And the Chidush is - that Ma'amar is either Koneh completely or not Koneh at all.

(c)And the reason that he rules that if the Yavam performed Chalitzah with the Ba'alas Ma'amar, the Tzarah is not Patur is - because the Tzarah is a Vaday (Zekukah), whereas the Ba'alas Ma'amar is a Safek (maybe Ma'amar is Koneh), and a Safek cannot remove the obligation of a Vaday.

9)

(a)Rebbi Shimon has explained why he permits the third brother, if he is born after the second brother performed Yibum with her. The problem with the opinion of the Rabanan, who forbid the third brother in all cases is - that since there was never a Zikah of the first brother between her and the third brother, why should she be forbidden to him?

(b)The Rabanan learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'Lekachah Lo l'Ishah v'Yibmah" - that the original Yibumin remain with the Yevamah even after the second brother has performed Yibum.

2. ... "u'Lekachah Lo l'Ishah" - that, once the Yavam has acquired her through Yibum, she becomes his wife, even to the extent that he can divorce her and take her back, because the Isur of Eishes Ach has dissolved.

(c)We have now solved the previous problem - be demonstrating how the original Yibumin remain intact even after the second brother has performed Yibum.

(d)We Darshen from the latter Derashah that she becomes his wife in totality - because it is speaking about the Mitzvah of Yibum, which is basically permitted (Heter with Heter); and from the former, that the original Yibumin remains - because it is speaking about Eishes Achiv, which basically involves an Isur (Isur with Isur).