1)

(a)Rebbi Chiya adds six cases of Sheniyos not listed in the original Beraisa: 'Shelishi she'bi'V'no' and 'Shelishi she'be'Bito' (i.e. 'Bas ben Bno' & 'Bas ben Bito' respectively), which Chazal included among the Sheniyos - on account of Bas Bno & Bas Bito (both of which are Arayos), respectively.

(b)The next two are - 'Bas ben B'nah shel Ishto', and 'Bas ben Bitah'.

(c)The final two are 'Revi'i she'be'Chamiv v'she'be'Achoso' - which are the equivalent of 'Eim Eim Chamiv' and 'Eim Eim Chamoso'.

2)

(a)All of the above cases are really the third generation, not counting one's wife. In the first two (of the six) cases, Rebbi Chiya did not include his wife, because the Isur is not the result of the marriage to his wife - whereas in the last two, he did (by referring to them as 'Revi'i'), because it is.

(b)He nevertheless did not count his wife in the middle two cases (his wife's son's son's daughter or daughter's son's daughter'), whose prohibition is also due to his wife - because those cases of Sheniyos, the result of his marriage, only echo those that are due to his own relationship.

3)

(a)Rav Ashi asked Rav Kahana whether the Sheniyos of Rebbi Chiya extend upwards or downwards or not. We cannot resolve this She'eilah from Rav, who heard that only four women do not extend to other generations, among which Rebbi Chiya's Sheniyos are not included - because Rav only heard this in reference to the original Beraisa which listed eight Sheniyos.

(b)Neither can we resolve it from Rebbi Chiya himself, who said 'Shelishi' and 'Revi'i' (implying that the Isur does not extend further) - because what he may have meant is 'from the third and fourth generations and onwards.

(c)When Rava informed Rav Nachman that, in Eretz Yisrael, they had posed the She'eilah whether a convert is permitted to marry Sheniyos or not - the latter commented that, considering that, if not for the fear that the converts may say 'We have come from a superior Kedushah to an inferior one', Chazal would not have forbidden the Arayos themselves (because of the principle that a convert is like a new-born baby - disconnected from his past and from his past relatives), it is obvious that Chazal did not forbid the Sheniyos.

4)

(a)Rav Nachman drew a distinction between two maternal brothers who converted, who are forbidden to testify in court - and two paternal brothers, who may.

(b)The reason for this is - because even if a Nochri does not know for sure who his father is, he certainly knows who is mother is (Rashi adds that the Torah made the seed of a Nochri Hefker - removing any relationship between the them [at least in certain regards, because with regard to inheritance, a Nochri does inherit his father]).

(c)Ameimar disagrees with Rav Nachman. According to him - even maternal brothers may testify in court.

(d)In spite of the fact that Chazal forbade a convert to marry his blood relative, they nevertheless permitted two brothers to testify (see Tosfos Yeshanim) - because Ervah lies in the hands of every individual (who is likely to confuse converts with native Jews), whereas testimony lies in the hands of Beis-Din (who are not likely to do so).

5)

(a)When our Mishnah teaches that an 'Ach mi'Kol Makom' is required to perform Yibum, and is considered a brother in all regards - it refers to a brother who is a Mamzer (see Tosfos DH 'Peshita').

(b)The Tana considers it necessary to inform us of this - because we might otherwise have learned "Achvah" "Achvah" from the Bnei Yakov that a Mamzer is not a brother, and is therefore Patur from Yibum (see 17b.).

(c)The reason that he is nevertheless Chayav Yibum - is because, seeing as a Mamzer is considered a son, and exempts his uncle from the need to perform Yibum with his mother (as we shall see shortly), he is also considered a brother, who can perform Yibum with his sister-in-law.

(d)A brother is not considered a brother regarding Yibum or anything else - if he is born from a Shifchah Kena'anis or from a Nochris (even though he is a brother biologically).

6)

(a)Someone exempts his brother from Yibum if he has a Ben mi'Kol Makom' - meaning a Mamzer.

(b)He is also listed in our Mishnah as being a son - as regards being Chayav Misah for striking his father and cursing him.

(c)A son born from a Shifchah or from a Nochris - is not considered a son (even though biologically, he is).

7)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that an 'Ach mi'Kol Makom' is a brother in every regard - incorporating inheritance and the obligation to bury him (even if he is a Kohen).

(b)The Tana needs to tell us this, because, in the case of a wife, this is not the case. We Darshen from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ki im l'She'ero ha'Karov Elav" - that one of the relatives that a Kohen is obligated to bury is his wife ('Ein She'ero Ela Ishto').

2. ... "Lo Yitama Ba'al b'Amav l'Hechalo" - that he is not however, permitted to bury his wife who is Pasul to him (e.g. a divorcee, who is married to a Kohen).

(c)The Sevara to make this distinction between a Pasul brother and a Pasul wife - is the fact that, whereas the latter stands to be divorced (and is therefore considered as if she was not his wife), the former does not (and is therefore considered a brother under all circumstances).

8)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Mishpatim "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah Tiheyeh la'Adonehah" - that the child of a Shifchah is not considered the son of his (Jewish - biological) father, or the brother of his father's son.

2. ... in Ki Setzei "u'Ben Ein Lo" - 'Ayen Alav', meaning that whatever sort of son he has (even a Mamzer) will exempt his wife from Yibum when he dies.

(b)And from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "v'Nasi b'Amcha Lo Sa'or" - that one may curse a king who does not behave like a Jew.

(c)Based on a statement of Rav Pinchas quoting Rav Papa, we reconcile this Derashah with our Mishnah, which obligates a Mamzer to honor his father who committed incest - by establishing the latter case where his father did Teshuvah.

(d)When Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah teaches in a Mishnah in Chagigah that someone who commits incest and gives birth to a Mamzer cannot rectify his sin - he is talking specifically about rectifying what he did, but as far as the future is concerned, from the moment he does Teshuvah, he is considered 'Oseh Ma'aseh Amcha' (a respectable Jew).

9)

(a)According to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, someone who commits incest with his sister who is also his wife's daughter b'Shogeg, brings only one Chatas. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ervas bas Eishes Avicha Moledes Avicha, Achoscha Hi" (in spite of having already written "Ervas Achoscha bas Avicha O bas Imecha") - that one is Chayav for Ervas bas Eishes Avicha, too (two Chata'os b'Shogeg or possibly, two sets of Malkus, b'Meizid).

(b)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns that he only brings one Chatas - from the Pasuk "Achoscha Hi" (to preclude bas Eishes Avicha).

(c)The Rabanan learn from the Pasuk "Achoscha Hi" - that one is Chayav Kares even for a sister who is both a paternal and a maternal one.

(d)This Derashah refers to a sister who is born from rape (because one who is born from his wife is specifically mentioned).

10)

(a)The Rabanan learn from "Hi" the principle of 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din' (with regard to Malkus) - meaning that we cannot learn a sister who is both a paternal and a maternal sister (whom the Torah does not specifically mention) from a paternal or a maternal sister (whom it does).

(b)In view of this Derashah (with which everyone agrees), Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns that one is not Chayav for the Lav of Eishes Aviv - from the word "Hi", which remains superfluous.

11)

(a)According to the Rabanan, the Torah sees fit to insert "Hi" - in that the Torah needs to write "Hi" - to teach us that elsewhere we do not say 'Mazhirin min ha'Din'.

(b)Had it only written "Achoscha", we would have thought - that the Torah inserts in spite of the 'Kal-va'Chomer', due to the principle 'Milsa d'Asya b'Kal va'Chomer Tarach v'Kasav Lah K'ra' (the Torah will sometimes take the trouble to mention something, even though it could be learned from a 'Kal va'Chomer').

(c)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the Rabanan's Derashah from "Achoscha Hi" on the grounds that - the Torah should then have written "Achoscha Hi" in the Pasuk of "Achoscha bas Avicha" (which talks about a sister born to the woman whom his father raped (rather than in the Pasuk which talks about one who is born to the woman whom he married).

12)

(a)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "Ervas bas Eishes Avicha ... " - that a sister born from a woman whom her father is unable marry (i.e. a Shifchah or a Nochris) is not called a sister.

(b)The problem with this is - that it would be far simpler to preclude a sister who is born out of wedlock (from a woman whom his father raped. So why does he not explain it like that?

13)

(a)We answer by quoting Rava, who cites the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ervas bas Bincha O bas Bitcha Lo Segaleh" (implying that it is only one's own granddaughter who is forbidden, but not the granddaughter of one's wife, clashing with the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ervas Ishah u'Bitah Lo Segaleh, es bas B'nah v'es bas Bitah ... ".

(b)Rava resolves the discrepancy - by establishing the former Pasuk by a woman whom he raped (and whose granddaughter from another man is permitted to him), and the latter Pasuk by the woman whom he married, (whose granddaughter is forbidden - even from another man).

(c)This refutes our previous suggestion that based on the Pasuk "Ervas bas Eishes Avicha ... ", Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah will preclude a sister born from the woman whom his father raped from the prohibition of incest; whereas we now see that it is only the granddaughter* of the woman whom his father raped (and only from another man) who is permitted, but the daughter and son from her are considered a daughter and a son. Consequently, that daughter will also be considered the sister of the man's son, and we cannot possibly preclude her.