1)

(a)Our Mishnah cites two sets of circumstances under which all the above prohibitions (Chacham, Meivi Get and Me'id) become permitted; one of them is if they were married at the time that they became involved with the woman, and their wives subsequently died - the other, if the woman first married someone else, who then divorced her or died.

(b)The women are permitted to marry the relatives of the men concerned.

(c)We can extrapolate from the fact that, in the earlier case, the Mishnah mentions specifically that 'their wives subsequently died' - that if they divorced them, they concession would not apply.

(d)We reconcile this with the Beraisa which permits it - by establishing the latter where they were already quarreling before the husband became involved with the second woman, so that there is no real basis for suspicion.

(e)Alternatively, we establish the Beraisa, even if they had not quarreled earlier - but where it was the wife who began the quarrel.

2)

(a)When the Tana says 'v'Chulan she'Nis'u la'Acherim, v'Nisgarshu O she'Nis'almenu, Mutaros li'Nasei Lahem', we think that Misah ('Nis'almenu') refers to the earlier case of 'Mes, Haragtiv ... ', and Gerushin to 'ha'Meivi Get' - in which case, the author of our Mishnah could not be Rebbi, who holds that, once a woman has lost two husbands, she has a Chazakah of being a 'Katlanis' (a woman who kills her husbands) and is not permitted to marry a third time.

(b)In order to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi - we reverse the cases, connecting Misah to the case of 'ha'Meivi Get', and Gerushin to that of 'Mes, Haragtiv ... '.

3)

(a)Our Mishnah permits a woman to marry the sons or the brothers of the suspected man, whereas the Mishnah in ha'Ishah Rabah forbids the suspected man to marry the mother or the daughter of the woman concerned - because women tended to socialize at home more than men did. Consequently, in our Mishnah, if the woman marries the son or the brother of the man with whom she had an affair, we are not afraid that she might meet the man himself when he comes to visit his relative, whereas we are afraid that the man might meet with the woman in the house of her mother or daughter.

(b)The reason that the Tana mentions specifically the man's son or brother - is (not to preclude his father but) to teach us that even they are permitted (and most certainly, the man's father, whose son will be too embarrassed to misbehave in his father's house).

4)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if two of four brothers marry two sisters and die, then the remaining brothers must perform Chalitzah and not Yibum. According to the Tana Kama, if they did perform Yibum, they must immediately divorce their Yevamos. According to Rebbi Eliezer - that is the opinion of Beis Hillel, but in the opinion of Beis Shamai, they may retain them.

(b)If one of the sisters is ...

1. ... an Ervah (e.g. a mother-in-law) to one of the brothers - then he is even permitted to perform Yibum with the other one, whilst the second brother is forbidden to both Yevamos.

2. ... a Sheniyah or a Chayvei Lavin - then he is obligated to perform Chalitzah but not Yibum.

(c)The reason for this difference is - because min ha'Torah, an Isur Ervah does not fall to Yibum at all (so the Tzarah is not a Tzaras Ervah), whereas Chayvei Lavin do (making the Tzarah a Tzaras Chayvei Lavin).

(d)They said 'Achosah k'she'Hi Yevimtah, O Choletzes O Misyabemes' - in a case when each sister is an Ervah to one of the brothers.

5)

(a)Considering the two sisters who fall to the two brothers fall from two houses, we initially contend that the Tana of our Mishnah must hold 'Yesh Zikah' - enabling the Yavam to nullify her Nedarim, and to forbid her relatives on him (besides the Din being discussed in our Mishnah).

(b)We refute the proof that 'Yesh Zikah' - by giving the reason for prohibiting Yibum on the Yevamah's sister as 'Asur l'Vatel Mitzvas Yibum' (in case the second brother dies before he has managed to perform Yibum or Chalitzah with the second sister (as we discussed earlier in the Perek).

(c)And the Tana speaks specifically of four brothers, and not three, where the Yibum will certainly be nullified - precisely because it is there (where there are three), where he will definitely negate the Mitzvah of Yibum with one of the sisters should he perform Yibum with the other one, it is obvious that he should perform Chalitzah (in order to be able to perform Chalitzah with her sister); whereas here (where there are four), the Tana needs to inform us that, although it is only a Safek, we still decree.

(d)This would not be a problem if the Tana's reason was 'Yesh Zikah (even when there are two brothers)' -because then the Chidush would be that even when there are two brothers, neither of them may perform Yibum, because of Achos Zekukaso (and we do not say that it will later transpire retroactively that the Zikah of each Yevamah was specifically designated for the Yavam who performed Yibum with her ['Bereirah']), how much more so when there is only one brother.

(e)The Tana specifically states the Din of two sisters when there are four brothers, as we just explained - but in a case of five brothers, two of the remaining three brothers will be permitted to perform Yibum, because we do not contend with the probability of two brothers dying.

6)

(a)Rabah bar Rav Huna quoting Rav rules that, if three sisters fall before two brothers for Yibum - each brother performs Chalitzah with one of the sisters, following which both brothers perform Chalitzah with the 'middle' one.

(b)Rabah extrapolates from Rav's ruling that he holds - that a. the Zikah extends to both Yevamin, and b. that she needs Chalitzah from both brothers because the subsequent Chalitzah is a weak one ...

(c)... this in turn - because neither brother is permitted to perform Yibum, because she is Achos Chalutzaso.

7)

(a)And the reason that this ruling is confined to the 'middle' sister is - because the Tana is speaking when the sisters fell one at a time.

(b)If all three sisters fell at the same time - both brothers would be required to perform Chalitzah with each of the sisters.

(c)We reconcile all this with the fact that Rav himself holds 'Ein Zikah' - by establishing the current ruling as being (not his own, but) the opinion of those who hold 'Yesh Zikah'.

8)

(a)Shmuel disagrees with Rav's current ruling. In the case where three sisters fall before two brothers for Yibum - he permits one of the brothers to perform Chalitzah with all the sisters.

(b)We query Shmuel however, from another statement of his, where he rules in a case where two sisters who were married to two brothers, and who fell before the third brother for Yibum, each one together with a Tzarah - that if the brother performed Chalitzah with ...

1. ... the sisters - the Tzaros still require Chalitzah.

2. ... the Tzaros - the sisters are Patur.

(c)This is because - the Isur on the sisters (who are Achos Zekukos) is stronger than that on the Tzaros, and it is preferable to perform Chalitzah on the Yevamah whose Isur is the weakest.

(d)This appears to contradict Shmuel's current ruling - inasmuch as, seeing as he goes for the smallest Isur, he ought to have followed the ruling of Rav, requiring each Yavam to perform Chalitzah with one of the sisters ..., rather than allowing one Yavam to perform all three!

9)

(a)We reconcile Shmuel's two statements - by explaining 'v'Chulan' of Shmuel to refer to the 'middle' Yevamah only.

(b)And he disagrees with Rav - inasmuch as according to him, only one of the brothers needs to perform Chalitzah on the 'middle' sister.

(c)He nevertheless said 'l'Chulan' - because, at the end of the day, the Yavam who performs Chalitzah with her, has performed Chalitzah with two of the three Yevamos (the majority).

(d)Alternatively - Shmuel only forbids freeing the Tzaros (whose Isur is weaker than that of the sisters) through the Chalitzah of the sisters, but when it is a matter of releasing the sisters, the Chalitzah on one can exempt the other.