1)

(a)We have just seen in the Beraisa, that Achos Ishto me'Imah is forbidden, no less than m'Avihah. The objection against learning ...

1. ... this from Achoso (rather than from Dodaso that she is permitted) is - that Dodaso, like Achos Ishto, comes about through Kidushin, as opposed to Achoso, who comes naturally.

2. ... Dodaso that she is permitted (rather than from Achoso that she is forbidden) - because Achoso, like Achos Ishto, is his relative, as opposed to Dodaso, who is a relative of his father.

(b)We finally opt to learn that she is forbidden from Eishes Ach - who (like her) is both his relative and becomes forbidden through Kidushin.

(c)We suggest that the source of Eishes Ach m'Imo herself is Achoso. We decline ...

1. ... to rather permit her from Dodaso - because it is preferable to learn a relationship that is the result of Kidushin from a similar relationship (rather than from a personal one).

2. ... to accept that source (in favor of Dodaso) - because it is better to learn one's own relation from one's own relation, rather than from a relation of one's father.

(d)We finally learn Eishes Ach m'Imo from the Pasuk "Ervas Achicha Hi" - which is talking about Eishes Achiv ...

(e)... and which is superfluous (having already written "Ervas Eishes Achicha Lo Segaleh"), to teach us that one is Chayav for one's maternal brother's wife as well as for one's paternal one.

2)

(a)We do not need a Pasuk to teach us that Eishes Ach who has no children, and whom his brother divorced, is forbidden (and is even Chayav Kares), because the Torah writes "Nidah Hi" (like Rav Huna on the previous Amud). Neither do we need "Ervas Achicha Hi" to teach us that if one's brother dies leaving children, his widow is forbidden to him - since we know that from the fact that the Torah needs to permit her when there are no children.

(b)We suggest that the Pasuk nevertheless comes to preclude any one of three contentions, in a case where there are children: One of them, that the Yevamah is permitted both to the Yavam and to the Shuk. The other two are - a. that although the Yavam has no Mitzvah of Yibum with his deceased brother's wife, he is nevertheless permitted to marry her; b. that should he marry her, he contravenes a Lav ha'Ba mi'Chelal Aseh (which is only an Aseh).

(c)To refute these contentions - we cite the additional Pasuk "Ervas Achiv Gilah", which comes to teach us that, where the brother leaves over children, the Chiyuv Kares of Eishes Achiv remains in full force.

3)

(a)We suggest that Eishes Av min ha'Em should be permitted after his brother's death like Eishes Ach min ha'Av - and as for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Achvah" "Achvah" mi'Bnei Yakov - that comes to teach us that there is no Mitzvah of Yibum, but not that there is a prohibition.

(b)The Pasuk "Ervas Achicha Hi teaches us - that Eishes Ach min ha'Em remains forbidden after the death of her husband.

4)

(a)Seeing as we learn the Chiyuv Kares by all the Arayos from Hekeisha d'Rebbi Yonah, Rebbi Yochanan explains that the Torah writes Kares by his sister, to teach us that one is Chayav for each one - meaning that if one were to commit all the cases of incest say, by mistake, without realizing in the middle that it was forbidden, he would be Chayav a Chatas for each individual act.

(b)We learn all the other cases from Achoso - because it is a case of 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal, v'Yatza, Lo Lelamed al Atzmo Yatza, Ela Lelamed al ha'Klal Kulo Yatza'.

(c)According to Rebbi Yitzchak, who learns that one is Chayav a separate Chatas for each Ervah from "v'el Ishah b'Nidas Tum'asah" - the Torah writes Kares by his sister to teach us that Chayavei Kerisus receive Kares, and not Malkus.

5)

(a)"Aririm" " (written in Parshas Kedoshim together with Kares) means - childless.

(b)The Torah writes "Aririm Yamusu" - to teach us that the children that he had before committing this sin, will die before him; and it writes "Aririm Yiheyu" - to teach us that even the children that will be born to him after it, will die before him, too.

6)

(a)Someone who has relations with a Shifchah - transgresses the Lav of "Lo Yiheyeh Kadesh".

(b)A Shifchah Charufah - is a Shifchah Cana'anis who is 'betrothed' to an Eved Ivri, to whom he is permitted (see Rashi in Kedoshim [19:20]).

(c)The Lashon "Shichvas Zera" by Shifchah Charufah teaches us - that the Eved is only Chayav if he completes the Bi'ah (see 8a.), from which we extrapolate that other Chayavei Lavin are Chayav even for Ha'ara'ah.

(d)Rav Ashi explains that we cannot learn from the fact that the Torah writes Ha'ara'ah by Chayavei Kares, that by Chayavei Lavin, one is not Chayav until one completes the Bi'ah - because if so, the Torah would not have needed to write "Shichvas Zera" by Shifchah Charufah.

7)

(a)We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...

1. ... "Kichah" "Kichah" (Chayavei Lavin d'Kehunah from Chayavei Kerisus) - that one transgresses Chayavei Lavin d'Kehunah through Ha'ara'ah, and from ...

2. ... "Bi'ah" "Bi'ah" (Chayavei Aseh ["Dor Shelishi Yavo"] from Chayavei Lavin ["Lo Yavo Mamzer"]) - that the same apples to Chayavei Aseh.

(b)Ha'ara'ah is Asur by a Yevamah l'Shuk, according to those who consider a Yevamah l'Shuk a Lav - from "Shichvas Zera" (written by Shifchah Charufah); according to those who consider it an Aseh - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Bi'ah" "Bi'ah".

(c)A Yevamah l'Shuk might be ...

1. ... a Lo Sa'aseh - from the Pasuk "Lo Siheyeh Eishes ha'Mes ha'Chutzah ... ".

2. ... an Aseh - from the Pasuk Yevamah Yavo Alehah".

8)

(a)If Yevamah l'Shuk is an Aseh, the Pasuk " Lo Siheyeh will teach us - that Kidushin does not take effect on a Yevamah l'Shuk.

(b)We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Bi'ah" ["Yevamah Yavo Eilehah"] "Bi'ah" (from Chayavei Lavin ["Lo Yavo Mamzer"] - Ki Setzei) - that a Yavam acquires his Yevamah through Ha'ara'ah.

(c)We learn that a man acquires a woman through Ha'ara'ah - from "Kichah" ["Ki Yikach Ish Ishah u'Be'alah" - Ki Setzei] "Kichah" from Chayavei Kerisus ["v'Ish Ki Yikach es Achosah"].

9)

(a)Rava discusses "Shichvas-Zera" that the Torah writes by Shifchah-Charufah, Eishes-Ish and Sotah. We have already explained its significance by Shifchah Charufah. The Torah writes "Shichvas-Zera" ...

1. ... by Eishes-Ish (according to those who hold that one is Chayav even for Bi'ah with an Ever that is limp) - to preclude someone who performs Bi'ah with her after her death.

2. ... by Sotah - to preclude 'Bi'ah Derech Evarim' (where he fondles her and performs Bi'ah over her body).

(b)We might have thought that the former is Chayav - because, she the Torah (in Parshas Emor) still refers to her as "She'eiro''.

(c)Rav Sheshes maintains that the Pasuk comes to preclude where he warned her not to perform an unnatural Bi'ah with the suspect (Rashi's second explanation, with which Tosfos DH 'le'she'Kinei' agrees). Rava refutes ...

1. ... Rav Sheshes' contention however - on the grounds that the Torah has already written "Mishkevei Ishah", giving an unnatural Bi'ah the same Din as a natural one in this regard.

2. ... Abaye's rejection of his own explanation (that it comes to preclude 'Derech Evarim' (foreplay), on the grounds that this is not sufficient cause to make her a Sotah) - because we might otherwise have thought that seeing as the Torah contends with the husband's Hakpadah (strict concern), his warning to that effect will also obligate her.

(d)We reject Abaye's suggestion, that it comes to preclude when her husband warned her against the Neshikah (touching of the Ever without penetration) of the adulterer - on the grounds that, according to one opinion, that is considered Ha'ara'ah (as we shall now see).

10)

(a)Shmuel proved that Neshikah is called Ha'ara'ah, with a Mashal - to a man who, when placing his finger on his mouth, is bound to press it.

(b)When Rabah bar bar Chanah came from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel - he quoted Rebbi Yochanan, who defined Gemar Bi'ah regarding Shifchah Charufah, as Hachnasas Atarah (slight penetration).

(c)He explains the Beraisa, which defines Shichvas-Zera as 'Miruk' (meaning that he injects seed) - to mean Miruk Atarah (the insertion of the crown [top section] of the Milah).

(d)Rabah bar bar Chanah defines Ha'ara'ah - as Neshikah.

11)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived in Bavel, he quoted Yochanan who defined Ha'ara'ah as Hachnasas Atarah. When they told him that Rabah bar bar Chanah said otherwise, he retorted - that either Rabah bar bar Chanah was lying or he was.

(b)When Ravin arrived in Bavel, he too, quoted Rebbi Yochanan as defining Ha'ara'ah as Hachnasas Atarah. Rav Dimi and Ravin definitely disagree with Rabah bar bar Chanah. It does not necessarily follow however, that they also disagree with Shmuel, who holds that Neshikah is called Ha'ara'ah - because perhaps they hold that Ha'ara'ah comprises both.

(c)Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah also arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael. In his opinion, Rebbi Yochanan defined Ha'ara'ah as Hachnasas Atarah - and Gemar Bi'ah, literally.

(d)It is not possible to reconcile Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah with Shmuel (that Neshikah is also included in Ha'ara'ah) like we did Rav Dimi and Ravin - because he specifically says that anything less than Hachnasas Atarah, is considered Neshikah, for which one is Patur.