1)

(a)One of the four cases of a woman who is permitted to her husband but forbidden to her Yavam, is that of a Chalal who married a Kesheirah, who is forbidden to her Yavam who is a Kasher Kohen - because when she married the Chalal, she herself became a Chalalah.

(b)The Tana also includes a Kohen Hedyot who married a widow, and who has a brother who is a Kohen Gadol. Initially, we try to explain the Tana mentioning 'married' (when she would be equally forbidden to the Kohen Gadol had his brother just betrothed her) - on the grounds that had he only betrothed her, the prohibition would only be a Lav (of "Almanah Lo Yikach") which the Mitzvah of Yibum would override; whereas now that he married her there is also an Aseh (of "Ki im Besulah me'Amav Yikach Ishah"), and the Aseh of Yibum cannot override a Lav and an Aseh.

(c)We reject this answer however - on the basis of the various cases in the Sugya which are only a Lav (such as Mamzeres to a Yisrael), yet the Aseh of Yibum does not override the Mitzvah of yibum (as we learned above in the second Perek, from "v'Alsah Yevimto ha'Sha'rah" - see Maharshal).

2)

(a)Neither can we answer that the Tana mentioned 'married' because of the Seifa (that a Kohen Gadol who marries an Almanah and who has a brother who is ... a Kohen Hedyot, is forbidden to both) - because, in that case, the Tana should rather have mentioned 'betrothed', because of the Metzi'asa 'Kohen Gadol she'Kidesh es ha'Almanah v'Yesh Lo Ach Kohen Hedyot' (who would be forbidden to the Yavam if she had been married to the Kohen Gadol - because she would be a Chalalah).

(b)In fact, he mentions 'married' (in the Reisha) - because of the case that he brings right next to it: 'Chalal she'Nasa Kesherah v'Yesh Lo Ach Kasher' (who is forbidden to the Yavam only because the Chalal actually married her, rendering her a Chalalah).

3)

(a)In the list of those women who are forbidden to their husbands and permitted to their Yevamin, the Tana includes a widow whom a Kohen Gadol betrothed and who has a brother who is a Kohen Hedyot. He says 'betrothed' and not 'married' - because had the Kohen Gadol married her, she would have become a Chalalah, and been forbidden to the Yavam as well.

4)

(a)If the Yevamah is a Sheniyah to the husband but not to the Yavam, she is forbidden to her husband but permitted to the Yavam, which is possible - if they are paternal brothers but not maternal ones (and his wife is a Sheniyah through his mother (e.g. his mother's mother).

(b)All the combinations are applicable to Sheniyah.

(c)A Sheniyah who marries her relative is entitled to neither a Kesubah nor Peiros - (the fruit of Nichsei Milug that her husband ate).

(d)Normally, the husband is permitted to eat Peiros in exchange for his obligation to redeem her should she be captured.

(e)Despite the fact that her husband is not obligated to redeem her, he is nevertheless not obligated to return them - because Chazal penalized the woman regarding all the Tena'ei Kesubah (the obligations that they instituted on the husband) like on the Kesubah itself.

5)

(a)It is obvious that the Sheniyah is not entitled to receive Mezonos as long as they are living together, seeing as her husband is obligated to divorce her. When the Tana says that she does not receive Mezonos - he means that if her husband went overseas and she borrowed money for Mezonos, he will not be required to reimburse his wife once she has paid the lender.

(b)The (prevailing) opinion that anyone who feeds a woman whilst her husband is away loses his money - refers to a case when the lender did so of his own accord without being asked. But should the wife borrow money from him, he may claim the loan from her, and she then retrieves the money from her husband.

(c)Neither does she receive 'Bela'os' - the worn out clothes of Nichsei Milug and Nichsei Tzon Barzel that she brought into the marriage.

(d)The children however - are Kasher.

6)

(a)Initially, we attempt to solve the problem as to why, in the opening case in the Mishnah ('a Kohen Hedyot who married a widow who has a brother who is a Kohen Gadol'), the Tana needs to mention that she was a widow, even though, when the Kohen dies, she is a widow anyway, by suggesting - that this Tana holds 'Nisu'in ha'Rishonim Mapilin', in which case, as long as she was a Besulah when the Kohen Hedyot married her, she would be permitted to his brother the Kohen Gadol when her husband dies.

(b)We refute the suggestion that our Tana holds 'Nisu'in ha'Rishonim Mapilin' - on the basis of the case of a Chalal who married a Kesheirah, whom the Tana nevertheless forbids to the Yavam, who is a Kasher Kohen.

(c)We ultimately answer that in this case, the Tana certainly mentioned Almanah on account of the Seifa. This refers to the case - 'Kohen Gadol she'Nasa es ha'Almanah v'Yesh Lo Ach ... Kohen Hedyot', to whom she is Asur only because when the Kohen Gadol married her, she was an Almanah and through the marriage, she became a Chalalah.

7)

(a)According to Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan (78a.), when a Mitzri marries a Mitzris, we always go after the mother. Consequently, in the context of our Mishnah, if a Mitzri Rishonah is married both to a Mitzris Rishonah and a Mitzris Sheniyah, who both have sons who get married, their wives will be ...

1. ... permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their Yevamin - if they marry the same level (the Sheni married a Shenis, and the Shelishi, a Yisraelis).

2. ... forbidden to their husbands and permitted to their Yevamin - if they married different levels (the Sheni, a Yisraelis, and the Shelishi, a Shenis).

(b)They would both be permitted to both their husbands and their Yevamin - if each of them married Giyoros (who are permitted both to a Yisrael and to a Mitzri Sheni).

(c)And they would be forbidden to both, if each of them married an Aylonis. In the case when the Sheni married a Yisraelis who was an Aylonis, she would be forbidden ...

1. ... to her husband - because she is a Yisraelis.

2. ... to her Yavam - because of the Lav "Asher Teled" 'Prat l'Aylonis'.

(d)The Tana does not insert the case of Mitzri and Mitzris in our Mishnah, together with the Chayavei Lavin and the Sheniyos - because he omits the case of Petzu'a Daka anyway, and it is quite in order for a Tana to omit two cases from a Mishnah (provided he does not omit just one).

8)

(a)We query the answer that Petzu'a Daka is considered a Shiyur - on the grounds that the Mishnah has no reason to mention it in the first place, seeing as it has already mentioned Chayavei Lavin.

(b)We reply that the Tana also repeats different kinds of Chayavei Lavin, such as Kohen Hedyot she'Nasa Almanah and Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah. We query this however - on the grounds that it might be necessary to mention Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah (even after having mentioned Kohen Hedyot she'Nasa Almanah), in order to teach us Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's Din, that Kesheros are permitted to marry Pesulim (a Kasher Kohenes to marry a Chalal).

(c)And he needs to mention the Din of Yisrael she'Nasa bas Yisrael v'Yesh Lo Ach Mamzer after having mentioned Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah v'Yesh Lo Ach Kasher - to teach us that even when the Lav that forbids her to her husband is one that applies to everyone, she is nevertheless permitted to the Yavam (see Tosfos DH 'v'Kamashma Lan').

(d)We ultimately learn that Petzu'a Daka is considered a Shiyur (thereby justifying the omission of the case of a Mitzri who was married to two Mitzriyos) - from the case of Yisrael she'Nasa Mamzeres v'Yesh Lo Ach Yisrael, which is entirely superfluous, in which case the Tana could also have inserted the case of Petzu'a Daka, (but didn't).

9)

(a)We try to prove from the case in our Mishnah 'Chalal she'Nasa Kesheirah' - that 'Lo Huzharu Kesheros l'Hinasei li'Pesulin' (like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav), because we think that 'Kesheirah' refers to a Kasher Kohenes.

(b)We initially think that 'Kesheirah' must mean a Kohenes who is Kesheirah li'Kehunah - because, as we have learned in Pesachim, a Kohen should, if possible, marry a Kohenes.

(c)We initially reject the explanation that 'Kesheirah' means Kesheirah l'Kahal, because, in that case 'Yesh Lo Ach Kasher' will also mean Kasher l'Kahal. But that cannot be - because it would imply that the deceased brother was Pasul l'Kahal, which is not the case. In fact, he was a Chalal, in which case he was Pasul li'Kehunah (not l'Kahal), and his brother is Kasher li'Kehunah.

(d)Nevertheless, we conclude - there is no reason why 'Ach Kasher' should not mean Kasher li'Kehunah, and 'Kesheirah', Kesheirah l'Kahal. Consequently, we remain with no proof for Rav Yehudah Amar Rav.

10)

(a)Ravin bar Nachman queries Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (who permits Kesheros to marry Pesulim) from the Beraisa, which DArshens "Lo Yikachu", 'Melamed she'ha'Ishah Muzheres al Yedei ha'Ish' - which he interprets to mean that a Kesheirah is forbidden to marry a Pasul in the same way as a Kasher is forbidden to marry a Pesulah.

(b)Rava answers - that what the Beraisa means is that whenever the Kohen is warned not to marry the woman (i.e. a Kasher not to marry a Pesulah), then she is equally forbidden to marry him.

(c)Granted, we know already from Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and from the Beraisa of Rebbi Yishmael that, based on the Pasuk "Ish O Ishah Ki Ya'asu mi'Kol Chat'os ha'Adam" - but that is with regard to a Lav which applies to everybody; The Beraisa of "Lo Yikachu" comes to extend this principle even to Lavin that only apply to some people (such as Lavin of Kehunah).

11)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Emor "Emor el ha'Kohanim Bnei Aharon" - that women are not included in the Lav prohibiting Kohanim from becoming Tamei Mes ("Bnei Aharon" 've'Lo B'nos Aharon').

(b)Even without the Derashah of "Ish O Ishah", we have thought that women are included in the Din of Tum'ah (despite the fact that it is a Lav that is confined to Kohanim - from the Derashah of "Lo Yikachu" (which is written in the plural).

(c)According to the second Lashon, we need to learn from "Lo Yikachu" that women are included in the Isur. We would not have learnt it from "Ish v'Ishah" - because the Torah precludes women from Tum'as Kohanim (from "Bnei Aharon" 'v'Lo Bnos Aharon').