1)

(a)We just learned that even if we forbid the Tzarah of the Safek Mekudeshes in our Mishnah to perform Yibum, we do not need to worry that people will think that she must have been Mekudeshes since she still requires Chalitzah. We cannot require Chalitzah by a Safek Megureshes (by 'Safek Karov Lo Safek Karov Lah') and insert it in our Mishnah - because once we permit Chalitzah, we are afraid that they will perform Yibum (transgressing a Chiyuv Kares).

(b)We are not worried that by Safek Kidushin too, maybe they will go ahead and perform Yibum - because it doesn't matter even if they do (seeing as, due to the Chezkas Heter l'Yavam, the prohibition of Yibum there is no more than a Chumra).

2)

(a)Abaye queries this from the Mishnah in Almanah l'Kohen Gadol which cites the case of a house that falls on a person and on his wife who is also his brother's daughter, and it is not known which one of them died first, where the Tana rules - that the Yavam must perform Chalitzah with her Tzarah.

(b)According to the previous ruling, the Tana ought to have ruled - that since she had a Chezkas Heter l'Shuk, she does not even require Chalitzah.

(c)We initially refute the suggestion that there too, the Tana is merely being stringent - on the grounds that, if one allows Chalitzah, they will go on to perform Yibum ('Chumra d'Asi li'Yedei Kula').

(d)We counter that refutation however, in two ways; one of them in that we do not decree there, because unlike Gerushin, Nefilah is uncommon. The other - because whereas by Gerushin, the worry that the Chalitzah will lead to Yibum is based on the fact that the Ervah is still alive, and they will attribute the Heter Chalitzah to the fact that Beis Din decided that the Get was valid, and see no reason why not to perform Yibum; whereas by Nefilah, it is not feasible for Beis Din to arrive at a decision as to who died first, and they will know that the Chalitzah is merely a Chumra.

3)

(a)The Mishnah in Gitin rules that, if someone threw a Get to his wife in the street and it landed exactly in the middle, four Amos from one and four Amos from the other, she is Safek Megureshes. Besides the Din of Yibum (should the husband die), this also means that, if he is a Kohen, he cannot take her back.

(b)The Kashya from there is - that seeing as there too, it is a case of Gerushin, why are we not afraid that they might go on to perform Yibum?

(c)To answer the Kashya - Rabah and Rav Yosef both establish that case when there are two pairs of witnesses, whilst our Sugya is speaking when there are two individual witnesses.

(d)We think that two pairs of witnesses is better than one - because, they create a Safek d'Oraisa, overriding the Chazakah, whereas one pair of witnesses creates a Safek d'Rabanan, which cannot override the Chezkas Heter l'Shuk.

4)

(a)What prompts us to learn the case of Gerushin in our Mishnah by one pair of witnesses - is the fact that this is the case of Kidushin must be speaking ...

(b)... and that in turn - because if there were two pairs, seeing as one pair testifies that the Kidushin was closer to her, how can we possibly have said earlier, that we are not afraid that the Tzarah may perform Yibum, because she anyway has a Chezkas Heter l'Yavam!

(c)We retract from this answer on the grounds that, if there is a pair of witnesses who say that the Kidushin fell closer to the woman, how can we allow the Tzarah to perform Yibum. Alternatively, we retract - on the grounds that even when there are two contradictory pairs of witnesses, we will ignore the witnesses and apply the prevalent Chazakah.

(d)And we prove this from the episode with Bar Shatya, an epileptic who once sold property. Some witnesses testified that he sold it at a time when he was sane, others, when he was not. Rav Ashi ruled that we ignore the witnesses and place the field in the Chazakah of bar Shatya.

5)

(a)On the basis of the Kashya that we just asked, Abaye re-learns the corollary between Kidushin and Gerushin in our Mishnah by citing the Pasuk in Iyov "Yagid Alav Rei'o". Consequently, 'Safek Karov Lei, Safek Karov Lah' in our Mishnah extends to Safek Gerushin, and 'Kasav bi'Kesav Yado ...' extends to Safek Kidushin.

(b)Rava disagrees with him, because the Mishnah writes 'Zehu'. According to him, the Tana inserts 'Zehu' ...

1. ... by Kidushin - to exclude the case of a Shtar that does not contain the date, which is not Pasul by Kidushin.

2. ... by Gerushin - because he wrote 'Zehu' by Kidushin (because in fact, the Safek by Gerushin does indeed include the case of 'Safek Karov Lei, Safek Karov Lah').

6)

(a)Some say that Chazal did not institute the date on Kidushin, because of 'fruit' - meaning that the reason that they instituted it by Gitin is to determine from which date the woman is permitted to demand payment for the fruit that her husband continues to eat from her fields after he decides to divorce her ...

(b)... a reason that does not apply to Kidushin (since a man who betroths a woman is not permitted to eat the fruit of his wife's fields until the marriage anyway).

7)

(a)The alternative reason for instituting the date on a Get is - because we are afraid that, if Gitin would not be dated, the husband of a woman whose wife committed adultery might cover up for his wife (to protect the family name, should she be his sister's daughter, for example), by giving her a Get and saying that the Get preceded the adultery.

(b)The reason that they did not institute the date on documents of Kidushin is - because some people become betrothed through money and not by means of a document.

(c)Rav Acha brei d'Rav Yosef queried this from the documents of sale of slaves, where they instituted inserting the date (despite the fact that there too, the sale of slaves is sometimes effected through money). The purpose of instituting the date by the sale of slaves is - to establish the date from when the purchaser of a slave may begin to eat the fruits of his slave's property.

(d)Despite the fact that there too, the sale of slaves sometimes took effect through money, they instituted the date on the documents of sale of slaves but not on those of Kidushin, Rav Ashi (or Rava) replied - because the majority of sales of slaves were effected through a document (which was not the case by Kidushin).

8)

(a)Another reason that they did not institute the date on Kidushin, is because to do so would create the problem of where to place it. One cannot place it ...

1. ... with the woman - because should she then commit adultery, she will erase it and say that the act took place prior to the Kidushin (negating the gain of inserting the date in the first place).

2. ... with the Mekadesh - for the same reason (as we explained in the previous question).

3. ... with the witnesses - because, if they remember when the Kidushin took place, then the document is not necessary anyway, and if they don't, they might check the date with the document, and the Torah writes in Ki Setzei "mi'Pihem", from which Chazal extrapolate 'v'Lo mi'Pi Kesavam' (meaning 'from their mouths but not from their notes').

(b)The woman keeps the Get.

(c)We are not worried there too (like by Kidushin) that she will erase the date on the document - because whereas by Kidushin, hiding or erasing the date will save her from punishment, doing so on a Get can only be to her detriment (seeing as she needs the dated document to prove that she was divorced prior to the act, otherwise she will be pronounced guilty).

9)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses three brothers who are married to three non-related women, where one of the brothers dies and one of them makes Ma'amar and dies. The Tana Kama rules that the two Yevamos require Chalitzah, and not Yibum - because the Torah writes "u'Mes Achad Meihem, Yevamah Yavo Alehah", from which we deduce that the Yavam may only perform Yibum with a Yevamah who has the Zikah of one Yavam on her and not of two.

(b)Rebbi Shimon even permits the Yavam to perform Yibum with either of the two Yevamos, and Chalitzah with the other - because in his opinion, either Ma'amar is Koneh completely (in which case she was the wife of the second brother), or it is not (and she remained the wife of the first one). No matter which, one of the two women is permitted to him for Yibum.

(c)And the second Yevamah require Chalitzah, according to him - in case Ma'amar is not Koneh.

10)

(a)The prohibition of two Zikos (according to the Tana Kama) cannot be d'Oraisa - because if it were, why would the Yevamah require Chalitzah.

(b)mid'Oraisa - Ma'amar would not be Koneh at all. Consequently, the Yevamah in question and the wife of the brother who performed Ma'amar, would have the Din of two Yevamos who fell from two houses, each of whom would require either Chalitzah or Yibum.

(c)The Rabanan forbade Yibum in this case - in case people will think that whenever two Yevamos fall to Yibum from one house, they both require Yibum.

(d)They did not institute that the Yavam makes Yibum with one of them and Chalitzah with the other - because this too, might lead people to believe that whenever two Yevamos fall to Yibum from one house, one of them requires Yibum, and the other, Chalitzah.

11)

(a)We are worried that people might say that every time two Yevamos fall to Yibum from one house, one of them requires Yibum and one Chalitzah - there where the Yavam performed Chalitzah first (and the Torah has written "Asher Lo Yivneh", forbidding Yibum with any of the Yevamos after Chalitzah has been performed with one of them. There would however, be no problem if he were to perform Yibum first (though they forbade it l'Chatchilah).

(b)If, before he died, the Yavam (in our Mishnah) gave a Get for the Ma'amar that he made, Rava permits his brother to perform Yibum with the Tzarah of the Ba'alas Ma'amar, but not with the Ba'alas Ma'amar herself - in case one confuses her with a Yevamah to whom her Yavam gave a Get (for the Zikah, which forbids her mid'Rabanan to perform Yibum).

(c)The reason for this cannot be because of 'Keivan she'Lo Banah, Shuv Lo Yivneh' (which would invalidate her on all the brothers) - because he only gave her a Get to remove the Ma'amar, and not to remove the Zikah.

(d)According to others - what Rava said was that if the Yavam gave her a Get for her Ma'amar, he is even permitted to perform Yibum with her (provided he specifically said so), because all he did was to remove the Ma'amar that he had made, leaving the Zikah intact.