1)

(a)When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Arba'ah Achin Nesu'in Arba'ah Nashim, u'Mesu ... ' - what he really meant was 'Arba'ah me'Achin she'Mesu ... '.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk (in the Parashah of Chalitzah) ...

1. ... "v'Kar'u Lo Ziknei Iro" - that the Beis-Din themselves must deal with Chalitzah, and not appoint Sheluchim.

2. ... "v'Dibru Eilav" - that, if the Yevamah was an inappropriate match for the Yavam (e.g. an old woman for a young man or vice-versa) - that they advise him to perform Chalitzah rather than Yibum, so as not to bring strife into his home.

(c)The Tana of our Mishnah speaks about the Yavam performing Yibum with four Yevamos. Beis-Din do not advise him to allow the other brothers to take three of them, and to just perform Yibum with one of them (to avoid bringing strife [and poverty] into his home, by having more wives to sustain than he can afford) - because our Mishnah is speaking in a case when the Yavam can afford to sustain four wives.

(d)The Tana talks specifically about four Yevamos - because a man (who is a Talmid-Chacham, to whom this particular Mishnah is addresses) is advised not to have more than four wives, so that (based on the fact that the Onah of a Talmid-Chacham is on Friday night) he should able to perform the Mitzvah of 'Onah' with each wife at least once a month.

2)

(a)From the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Asher Lo Yivneh es Beis Achiv", Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns - that a Yavam may perform Yibum with only one of the Yevamos (from one house).

2. ... "Beis Chalutz ha'Na'al", Mar Zutra bar Tovya learn - that the same applies to Chalitzah.

(b)We learn that if two Yevamos fall to Yibum from one house, that, should the Yavam perform Yibum with one, he is not obligated to perform Chalitzah with the other, from the principle - 'A Yevamah who is not subject to Yibum is not subject to Chalitzah either' (as we already learned in the second Perek), and we learn the principle from the Pasuk

(c)We learn the principle from the Pasuk - "Im Lo Yachpotz ha'Ish ... ", 'Ha Chafetz. Yibem'.

(d)Neither did the Rabanan decree that he should do so - for fear that he will reverse the order and perform Yibum with the second Yevamah after performing Chalitzah with the first (which is forbidden because of "Asher Lo Yivneh").

3)

(a)We try to reject the suggestion that when two Yevamos fall from one house, they are both Patur from Yibum, because if they were, then we would not need a Pasuk to exempt a Tzaras Ervah from Yibum. We refute that however - on the grounds that even if two Yevamos were both Patur, a Tzaras Ervah would be Chayav, because, if not for the Pasuk, we would have said that the Ervah remains outside (there is no Zikah with her, but there is with the Tzarah).

(b)We know that they are not both Patur - from the extra word "Yevimto" (which is written twice in the Parashah of Chalitzah).

(c)By obligating the Yavam to perform Chalitzah specifically with the Yevamah who is Pasul, says Rav Yosef, Rebbi (in our Mishnah) taught us - not to throw away the excess water in one's pits, when someone else needs it (as we already learned in the first Perek).

4)

(a)In our Mishnah, Rebbi Akiva rules that someone who is Machzir Gerushaso - (who takes back his divorcee after she has been married to somebody else) and who marries the woman with whom he performed Chalitzah or her relative, must give her a Get, and if they have a child, he is a Mamzer ...

(b)... because he holds that a child born from Chayvei Lavin is a Mamzer.

(c)According to the Chachamim - a child who is born from Chayvei Lavin is not a Mamzer.

(d)Even the Chachamim will concede that the child is a Mamzer - in the case of someone who marries a blood-relative of his divorcee (who, in this regard, is considered to be like his wife).

5)

(a)Based on a statement of Resh Lakish earlier in the Perek, we suggest that Rebbi Akiva could not have really included Kerovas Chalutzaso in his list. Resh Lakish extrapolates from the Mishnah - that Achos Gerushaso is Asur min ha'Torah, Achos Chalutzah, mid'Rabanan.

(b)Initially, we bring a proof for this from the Chachamin in the Seifa of our Mishnah, where the Tana writes 'u'Modim (Chachamim) b'Nosei Kerovas Gerushaso' - which only seems to make sense if Rebbi Akiva, with whom they are arguing, had first included it is his list.

(c)We know that the Tana of our Mishnah does not quote the Chachamim merely to inform us that ...

1. ... 'Yesh Mamzer me'Chayvei Krisus' - because this ruling will appear in a Mishnah later in the Perek.

2. ... the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon ha'Teimani - (who holds 'Yesh Mamzer me'Chayvei Kerisus') because if the Tana singled out specifically Machzir Gerushaso, it must be because Rebbi Akiva mentioned it first, as we suggested.

(d)Rebbi Akiva holds - 'Yesh Mamzer (Afilu) me'Chayvei Lavin'.

6)

(a)We finally refute our initial proof (that according to Rebbi Akiva, Kerovas Chalutzaso is only mid'Rabanan, and he really means Kerovas Gerushaso) because if Rebbi Akiva did not mention Kerovas Gerushaso - on the grounds that the Rabanan might mention Kerovas Gerushaso because, since they argue with Rebbi Akiva in the other three cases, the Tana saw fit to add that they agree with him by Kerovas Gerushaso.

(b)That being the case, Rebbi Akiva actually considers the child of a Chalutz and Chalutzah a Mamzer - which he learns, says according to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, from the Pasuk "Beis Chalutz ha'Na'al", implying that a Chalutzah is considered a relative, like a Gerushah (to forbid a Kohen to marry her), mid'Oraisa.

(c)According to the initial quotation of Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi, everyone agrees that if a man is Machzir Gerushaso, she is Pasul li'Kehunah like a Chalal. When he says 'everyone' - he means even Shimon ha'Teimani, according to whom the child is not a Mamzer. Nevertheless, he is saying, he is Pasul li'Kehunah.

(d)He learns this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol - where the Isur does not apply to everyone, yet the child that is born to them is a Chalal (disqualified from the Din of a Kohen or from marrying a Kohen), how much more so Machzir Gerushaso, whose Isur does apply to everyone.

7)

(a)We just learned that Rebbi Shimon ha'Teimani learns from Almanah that, although a child born from Chayvei Lavin is not a Mamzer, he is Pasul li'Kehunah. But surely, Almanah l'Kohen Gadol is different - seeing as she herself becomes Pasul (as we learn in Kidushin), whereas a woman who is a Chayvei Lavin, does not.

(b)A Machzir Gerushaso cannot render his wife Pasul li'Kehunah - because she is Pasul already.

(c)If she is the daughter of a Kohen - she does not become Pasul to eat Terumah (as we shall see in Almanah l'Kohen Gadol).

(d)We infer from the Pasuk in "Hi To'evah" (by Machzir Gerushaso) - "Hi To'evah" 'v'Ein Banehah To'eivin' posing a Kashya on Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi).

8)

(a)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Akiva, listing the Dinim of Chayvei Lavin, writes that the woman is Pesulah li'Kehunah - because she is a Zonah.

(b)The Chachamim who argue with Rebbi Akiva say that Kidushin takes effect on Chayvei Lavin and she requires a Get from him, and that she is Kasher and so is her child. If, as we initially contend, 'Kasher' means Kasher li'Kehunah - then the latter point is a disproof to Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi.

(c)We answer that 'Kasher' means Kasher l'Kahal (but not li'Kehunah). We are not perturbed by the fact that in the statement immediately preceding it ('that she is Kasher), it can only mean Kasher li'Kehunah (since it is obvious that she is Kasher l'Kahal) - because it is perfectly acceptable for one phrase to mean 'li'Kehunah' and the other one, 'l'Kahal'.

(d)And the proof for this lies in the Reisha, where Rebbi Akiva says 'Hi Pesulah u'V'ladah Pesulah' - even though 'Hi Pesulah' can only mean li'Kehunah (since committing an immoral act cannot possibly render a woman Pasul l'Kahal), whereas 'Veladah Pesulah' must mean Pesulah l'Kahal (too - seeing as according to Rebbi Akiva, the child is a Mamzer).

9)

(a)We just refuted the first of the three Kashyos against Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi. We refute the second Kashya (from the inference from "To'evah Hi") - by Darshening "Hi To'evah" 'v'Ein Tzarasah To'evah' (instead of 'v'Ein Banehah To'eivin').

(b)We have no answer for the first Kashya however ('Mah l'Almanah, she'Ken Hi Atzmah Mischaleles' - which we now interpret to mean that it is only because the mother is Pasul that the daughter becomes Pesulah too), and Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi is finally disproved.

10)

(a)So we emend Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi. His statement now pertains to Rebbi Yehoshua - who says that it is only the children of Chayvei Misos Beis-Din (but not from Chayvei Keriysos) who are Mamzerim.

(b)The new text of Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi's statement reads - 'ha'Kol Modim she'ha'Ba al Chayvei Keriysos she'ha'Vlad Pagum'.

(c)And he learns this from the same 'Kal va'Chomer' from Almanah l'Kohen Gadol as we tried to learn above (according to Shimon ha'Teimani) - because if, even when the Lav is restricted to a small section of the community (to Kohanim Gedolim), the child is a Pasul li'Kehunah, the children of Chayvei Kerisos, which incorporate everyone, should certainly be Pasul li'Kehunah.

(d)We cannot however, query this like we did earlier (that an Almanah is different, since she herself becomes profaned) - since the woman by Chayvei Kerisos (just like the Almanah), does indeed become Pesulah (because she is a Zonah).