1)

(a)According to Rava, Raban Gamliel's reason (for holding 'Ein Get Achar Get, v'Ein Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar') is because he is in doubt whether Get is Docheh or not and whether Ma'amar is Koneh or not. What he means is - if they are Docheh and Koneh (respectively), then the first one has already done its job and there is no room for the second one to take effect; and if they are not, then there is nothing to talk about (like we explained in the Mishnah).

(b)In a Beraisa, Raban Gamliel concedes that 'Yesh Get Achar Ma'amar u'Ma'amar Achar Get'. Likewise, he holds 'Yesh Get Achar Bi'ah u'Ma'amar', and 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Bi'ah v'Get' (both with regard to three Yevamos).

(c)In the latter two cases, asks Abaye, if, as Rava explains, Raban Gamliel is not sure whether Bi'ah is Docheh and Bi'ah is Koneh or not, why should Get after Ma'amar and Bi'ah, and Ma'amar after Get and Bi'ah, be effective? In the former case, - why does Raban Gamliel not contend with the possibility that the first Ma'amar is Koneh; and in the latter, that the first Get is Docheh?

(d)Therefore Abaye explains ...

1. ... that, according to Raban Gamliel - Get is definitely partially Docheh and Ma'amar, partially Koneh. However, the aspect of Zikah that a Get is Docheh, is not the same aspect as that which Ma'amar is Koneh. Consequently, whereas he holds 'Ein Get Achar Get' (because the second Get is coming to be Docheh the same aspect as the first one), he also holds 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Get' (and the same applies to Get Achar Ma'amar).

2. ... that the Rabanan, who hold 'Yesh Get Achar Get v'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar' - hold that each Yavam acquires a part of each Yevamah to be Docheh (with a Get), and a part to be Koneh (with Ma'amar). Consequently, 'Yesh Get Achar Get' and 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar' (since each Yavam affects his section of the Zikah).

2)

(a)Abaye attributes Raban Gamliel's opinion (that there is Get after Ma'amar and Bi'ah, and Ma'amar after Get and Bi'ah) to the fact that, on the one hand, Bi'ah Pesulah is better than Ma'amar and on the other, Ma'amar is better than Bi'ah Pesulah. When he says that ...

1. ... Bi'ah Pesulah is better than Ma'amar, he means - that Bi'ah after Ma'amar is effective, whereas Ma'amar after Ma'amar is not.

2. ... Ma'amar is better than Bi'ah Pesulah, he means - that Bi'ah after Get does not prevent Ma'amar from taking effect after it (in the case of a third Yevamah), whereas Ma'amar after Get acquires everything that the Get left over, thereby preventing Ma'amar from taking effect after it.

3)

(a)According to Raban Gamliel (who holds 'Ein Get Achar Get'), if someone gives two Gitin to two Yevamos, it might be preferable to perform Chalitzah with the second one - because, seeing as her Zikah has not been weakened by a Get, it is a more perfect Chalitzah than the first one, which has.

(b)He nevertheless rules, in a Beraisa, that he should perform Chalitzah with the first one - because her relatives are anyway forbidden to him because of the Get, so why perform Chalitzah with the second one, causing her relatives to become forbidden, too?

(c)According to the Chachamim - the relatives of the second Yevamah are forbidden to him anyway (since they hold 'Yesh Get Achar Get'), so it makes no difference with which Yevamah he performs Chalitzah.

(d)In the equivalent case of two Yevamin and one Yevamah (if each Yavam gave the Yevamah a Get) - Raban Gamliel holds that the second Yavam is permitted to marry the Yevamah's relatives, whereas according to the Rabanan, they are forbidden to him.

4)

(a)Shmuel rules 'Chalatz l'Ba'alas ha'Get, Lo Nifterah Tzarah' - because, in his opinion, the Zikah has been weakened by the Get, and as a result, the Chalitzah that is performed with her is not sufficiently strong to remove the full Zikah of the Tzarah.

(b)We query Shmuel however, from Raban Gamliel in the Beraisa, who says 'Choletz la'Rishonah' (the Ba'alas ha'Get, whose Chalitzah then exempts the Tzarah who did not receive a [valid] Get). We cannot however, ask from the Chachamim, who also say 'v'Choletz l'Achas Mehen' - because, according to them, 'Yesh Get Achar Get', in which case, the Zikos of both women have been weakened, as we already explained.

(c)Shmuel answers the Kashya - by establishing that Raban Gamliel holds 'Ein Zikah', which is why the bond between the Yavam and the Yevamah is easily broken (even through a Chalitzah with a Ba'alas Get; whereas he made his statement according to those who hold 'Yesh Zikah', and Zikah requires a strong Chalitzah to remove it.

5)

(a)We suggest that the Chachamim hold 'Yesh Zikah' - because we just concluded that Raban Gamliel (with whom they are arguing) holds 'Ein Zikah'.

(b)Nevertheless, the Tana tells us that if two Yevamin gave a Get to one Yevamah, only one Chalitzah is required, posing a Kashya on Rabah bar Rav Huna Amar Rav - who says that when Chalitzah Pesulah is required, then all the brothers need to perform it.

(c)The problem is that, in our case too, seeing as the Chalitzah follows a Get, it is a Chalitzah Pesulah, and, if the Chachamim hold 'Yesh Zikah' then, according to Rabah bar Rav Huna, both Yevamin ought to perform Chalitzah, not just one of them.

(d)He answers that, in fact - the Chachamim too, hold 'Ein Zikah' (whereas he only says that all the brothers require Chalitzah because he holds like those Tana'im who say 'Yesh Zikah'), and the Rabanan's Machlokes is confined to 'Get Achar Get' and 'Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar'.

6)

(a)According to Raban Gamliel, if the Yavam made Ma'amar first with one Yevamah, then with the other, the first one requires a Get and Chalitzah - not Yibum, because we are afraid that he may then go on to perform Yibum with the second one.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan maintains that Raban Gamliel, Beis Shamai, Rebbi Shimon, ben Azai and Rebbi Nechemyah all agree - that Ma'amar is Koneh completely.

(c)We see in our Sugya, that Raban Gamliel holds that Ma'amar is Koneh - from the fact that he holds 'Ein Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar'.

7)

(a)Beis Shamai say that if one of two brothers who were married to two sisters dies, and the third brother has already made Ma'amar with the Yevamah when the second brother dies - he may perform Yibum with her, and the second Yevamah is exempt from Yibum (a proof that he too, holds that Ma'amar is Koneh; otherwise the first Yevamah would be forbidden because of Achos Zekukaso).

(b)Chazal gave the Bi'ah of a Katan over nine, the status of - Ma'amar.

(c)When the Chachamim ruled that a Yavam Katan who is over nine, who performed Yibum with his Yevamah, after his brother (also a Katan over nine) has already done so, forbids her on his brother - Rebbi Shimon remarked that if the Bi'ah of the first brother is a Bi'ah, then that of the second is not, and if it is not, then neither is the Bi'ah of the second one.

(d)We prove from there that R. Shimon too, holds that Ma'amar is Koneh - because, bearing in mind that the Bi'ah of a Katan is considered Ma'amar (as we just explained), the first Yavam's Bi'ah is only Docheh that of the second one because Ma'amar is Koneh.

8)

(a)By two Yevamin and one Yevamah, ben Azai rules 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar (because Chazal instituted a separate Ma'amar by each Yavam, though not by each Yevamah, which is why), by two Yevamos and one Yavam, he holds 'Ein Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar'.

(b)From the latter case we see - that he too, holds that Ma'amar is Koneh.

(c)We prove from Rebbi Nechemyah, who says in our Mishnah that there is nothing after Bi'ah, even if it comes in the middle or at the end - because one of the cases in the Mishnah (Bi'ah Achar Get), is in fact, a Bi'ah Pesulah, which Chazal gave the Din of Ma'amar, a proof that he too, holds that Ma'amar is Koneh.