1)

(a)According to the Beraisa that we just learned, the Tzarah is forbidden to get married, because the baby may live - implying that if we knew that the baby will die, she would be permitted (proving that the Chalitzah of a Me'uberes is valid (a Kashya on Resh Lakish)!

(b)Resh Lakish emends the Beraisa to read 'Shema Lo Yehei ha'Vlad ben Kayama, u'Bi'as Me'uberes Lo Shemah Bi'ah, va'Chalitzas Me'uberes Lo Shemah Chalitzah'. The Tana nevertheless needs to add the fact that the baby does not exempt (from Yibum and Chalitzah) until it is born - because otherwise, we would go after the majority of women, who give birth to a baby that lives, permitting her to marry in anticipating that this will be the case.

(c)Rebbi Elazar was so impressed with Resh Lakish's opinion - that he set out to find a Mishnah in support of it.

2)

(a)The Mishnah in ha'Ishah Basra says that a woman whose husband and Tzarah have gone overseas, and who receives information that her husband has died - may neither get married nor make Yibum, in case the Yevamah is pregnant.

(b)Rebbi Elazar attempts to vindicate Resh Lakish from there - because (whereas not performing Yibum is understandable, [seeing as the baby may live, in which case she will have transgressed the Isur of Eishes Ach]) why should she not perform Chalitzah ... unless the Tana holds that the Chalitzah of a pregnant woman or her Tzarah is not valid (like Resh Lakish)!

(c)Even Rebbi Yochanan will agree that the woman is forbidden to get married, even after performing Chalitzah - within nine months, in case the baby lives, and, as we learned above, the baby does not exempt the Yevamah from Yibum until it is born.

(d)The text 'Tachlotz b'Toch Sheloshah v'Tinasei l'Achar Sheloshah' is unacceptable - because she cannot be permitted to marry after three months, since as we just learned it is only the baby that will permit her to get married, but only from the moment that he is born.

3)

(a)We reject Rebbi Elazar's proof on the grounds that even Resh Lakish would be forced to agree that, strictly speaking, it should be possible for the woman to marry - after nine months, in which case, there is no reason for her not to perform Chalitzah before nine months and get married after nine months.

(b)And the Tana's reason for forbidding her to do so - is because of Abaye and Chinena, the sons of Avin, who explained that perhaps the baby will live, in which case, the Chalitzah will be invalidated retroactively, and she will require a public announcement to permit her to marry a Kohen. The problem with this is that there may be people who were present at the Chalitzah but not at the announcement, and, if we subsequently permit her to marry, those people will think that a Chalutzah may marry a Kohen.

(c)Abaye rejects even this explanation, establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Yochanan - by pointing out that the Beraisa says nothing about not performing Chalitzah, only marriage and Yibum; so who said that the Yevamah is forbidden to perform Chalitzah (like Rebbi Yochanan)?

(d)We finally quote a Beraisa that vindicates Resh Lakish. The Beraisa says that a Yavam who performs Chalitzah with a Me'uberes, and who then loses her baby - still requires Chalitzah from the brothers.

4)

(a)In addition to our case, Rava cites - two other cases where the Halachah is like Resh Lakish against Rebbi Yochanan.

(b)One of the two cases concerns someone who distributes his property among his children. The Mishnah in Bava Basra makes a distinction between whether he uses a Lashon of Yerushah - in which case the distribution is invalid, or whether he does not - in which case it is valid.

(c)As long as he mentions Matanah, the Tana adds, the distribution stands (even though the basic text of the Shtar is one of Yerushah) - and it makes no difference in which part of the Shtar he mentions it, at the beginning, in the middle or at the end.

(d)In the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan there, as long as the father mentions Matanah once, the entire distribution stands. Resh Lakish however, says - that the distribution only stands if the Lashon of Matanah is mentioned in connection with each recipient.

5)

(a)The third case in which Rava rules like Resh Lakish concerns a Mishnah in Bava Kama which states 'ha'Kosev Kol Nechasav li'Veno l'Achar Moso' - meaning that he writes 'from today and until after my death' bequeathing all his property to his son immediately, but retaining the 'Peiros' (all current benefits) for himself until then.

(b)As long as the father is still alive - neither of them is permitted to sell the property.

(c)In the event that ...

1. ... the father sells the property - the sale (with regard to the Peiros) is valid until his death.

2. ... the son sells it - the sale will take effect only after his father's death.

(d)If the son sold the field during his father's life-time and then died, Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the sale is not valid (even after the father's death), whereas according to Resh Lakish, it is. The reason of ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan is because - he holds (The) 'Kinyan Peiros (of the father) k'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami', thereby rendering his son's sale invalid.

2. ... Resh Lakish is because, in his opinion - 'Kinyan Peiros Lav k'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami', so it does not interfere with the son's sale.

6)

(a)According to R. Yochanan, the Tana of our Mishnah considers the son's sale valid from the time of the father's death - only because the son is still alive, and the son sold any rights that he would later obtain (which he does at the time of his father's death).

7)

(a)The Seifa of our Mishnah rules that if, after the Yavam performs Yibum, the baby turns out to be a still-born, he is permitted to remain with her. Rebbi Eliezer disagrees - in his opinion, he is obligated to divorce her.

(b)We will learn later that a man is forbidden to marry a woman who is pregnant from her previous husband, or who is feeding his baby, for a period of twenty-four months. The Chachamim rule in a case where a man did marry one of the above women - that he must send her away until the twenty-four months expire, at which point he may take her back.

(c)Rava tries to equate Rebbi Meir, who says that he must divorce her and may never take her back, with Rebbi Eliezer - because they both hold that the sinner deserves to get punished for entering into a Safek Isur Eishes Ach or for marrying a woman who is forbidden to him.

(d)Abaye disagrees with Rava's equation. It may well be, he argues, that ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer's ruling is confined to our Mishnah, but will not apply to the case of Rebbi Meir - where he only transgressed an Isur d'Rabanan.

2. ... Rebbi Meir's ruling is confined to the Din of marrying a woman who is pregnant from her previous husband, or who is feeding his baby (which are d'Rabanan), but not to our Mishnah - which is anyway an Isur d'Oraisa, and does not require reinforcement (which explains why the Chachamim are sometimes more stringent by their commands than they are by the those of the Torah).

8)

(a)The Chachamim of Rebbi Meir (in the Beraisa) obligate the man to send his wife away ('Yotzi') but, after the twenty-four months have expired, he may take her back. Rava interprets 'Yotzi' to mean - that he must give her a Get.

(b)Mar Zutra actually infers this from the Lashon 'Yotzi' - when the Tana could have said 'Yafrish' ('that he should separate').

9)

(a)We extrapolate from Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says in a Mishnah in Shabbos 'Kol she'Shahah b'Adam Sheloshim Yom, Eino Nefel' - that if the baby died within thirty days, he is a Safek Nefel.

(b)The ramifications of this ruling with regard to the Din of Yibum - are that, if the baby died within thirty days, his mother requires Chalitzah but not Yibum.

(c)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's Din will not apply - in a case when we know for sure that the baby is a ninth-month baby, in which case he is not a Safek Nefel.

10)

(a)Ravina Amar Rava says that, if, in the above case, the baby died within thirty days, and the mother accepted Kidushin from a man from the Shuk, then, if if her husband is a Yisrael, she requires Chalitzah; but if he is a Kohen - (who will subsequently be forbidden to take her back), she does not.

(b)Rav Mesharshaya Amar Rava says - that, even if her husband is a Kohen, she still requires Chalitzah.

(c)Ravina explained that - the night before, Rava had indeed said what Rav Mesharshaya quoted him as saying; in the morning however, he retracted from his initial stance, in the way that he (Ravina) quoted him.

(d)When Ravina told him that, Rav Mesharshaya retorted - that having permitted a Yevamah l'Shuk, may he go on to permit Chelev, too.