Implied question (Ri): Why didn't the Mishnah say "[15] Arayos" (forbidden relatives), like it says in the Seifa "one of all these Arayos", "six Arayos are more stringent than these"?

Answer: We say below (3b) that the count comes to exclude the Tzarah of a Sotah, Tzarah of an Ailonis (one who does not develop like a normal female) or a Mema'enes (a minor who annulled her marriage mid'Rabanan) or Machazir Gerushaso (one who remarried his divorcee after she married someone else);

Had the Tana taught "Arayos", this would connotes that it comes to exclude Arayos that are not listed. (The women we exclude are not Arayos.)

Implied question: Since it says "until the end of the world", why must it say "Tzaros Tzaroseihem"?

The Gemara asks like this in Kesuvos (83b) 'since it says "until the end of the world", why must it say "Peros Peroseihen"'?

Answer: There, there was no need to write both of them. (One can waive his rights to Peros through writing only one of them - Tosfos ha'Rosh.) Here, it is the Tana's style to teach "not only this, rather, even this."

Question: Since it says "Tzaros Tzaroseihem", why must it say "until the end of the world"?

The Gemara asks like this in Temurah (17b). 'Since it says "the child of their child", why must it say "until the end of the world"?

Answer (Ri): There, since it taught that we offer the child of their child for a Shelamim, automatically we know that the same applies to all generations, since we are not concerned lest he grow herds of them, the way R. Eliezer is concerned there;

However, here one might have thought Tzaros Tzaroseihem are more forbidden [to the Yavam], for we expound from "Litzror". Litzror connotes two, for it has two occurrences of the letter Reish. (However, perhaps Tzaros Tzaros Tzaroseihem may do Yibum!)

Implied question: According to Rav Ashi, who derives Tzaras Tzarah from reasoning below (13a, how can we answer)?

Answer #1: Even so, the Tana needed to teach [until the end of the world], lest we think to learn from Litzror [that we do not exempt past Tzaros Tzaroseihem].

Answer #2: We say that also according to Rav Ashi, we learn Tzaras Tzarah from Litzror;

The Gemara explicitly teaches in our Sugya (3b) 'what is the source for Tzaros Tzaroseihem? The Torah said Litzror, and not Latzur.'

Explanation: Below (13a), we ask "what is the source?" We do not ask about Tzaras Tzarah, for the Beraisa explicitly expounded this from Litzror;

Rather, it asks for the source for even 100 [levels of Tzaros] in our Mishnah.

Rav Yehudah says that we learn all of them from Litzror;

Rav Ashi holds that Litzror connotes only two. We know 100 from reasoning;

Rhetorical question: Why is a Tzarah forbidden so much, that she forbids even her Tzarah? It is because she stands in place of (she is considered like) Ervah;

Likewise, also Tzaras Tzarah should forbid another [level of] Tzarah, for she stands in place of Ervah!

Rashi's opinion: We discuss Bito (his daughter) from a woman he raped. It cannot refer to Bas Ishto (his wife's daughter), for she is no less forbidden because she is his daughter! (The Mishnah teaches also Bas Ishto. Whenever we mention rape, the same applies to enticement.)

Citation (below 9b - Rav Yehudah): R. Chiya taught "regarding all of these, I apply (can find a case in which sisters fell to Yibum to brothers, and) "the one (Yevamah) forbidden to this [Yavam] is permitted to this (the second Yavam, and the other Yevamah is forbidden to the second Yavam and permitted to the first)", i.e. [regarding all the Arayos taught in our Mishnah] from a mother-in-law and onwards;

However, we do not apply this to the first six Arayos, for the case of Bito arises only through rape, but not through marriage;

We discuss cases of marriage, but not cases of rape.

Opinion #1 (Rashi): This refers to our Mishnah. It discusses only cases of marriage, but not to rape.

Rejection #1: If so, Bito must be Bas Ishto, similar to what we say below (10a) "what is the case of his mother? If she is married to his father, this is Eshes Aviv (which is already listed)!"

Rejection #2: The Gemara explicitly says that since we learn [the Isur of] Bito only through a Drishah, it is dear to the Tana [so he taught it first]. This refers to his daughter through rape! (The Torah explicitly forbids Bas Ishto.)

Rejection #3: Abaye (9b) says that R. Chiya discusses the entire Mishnah. You must say that he discusses rape! (Maharam - Abaye argued with Rav Yehudah only regarding R. Chiya's teaching. This implies that they agree about the Mishnah, i.e. it discusses rape!)

Opinion #2 (Tosfos): Rather, [Rav Yehudah] discusses R. Chiya. R. Chiya taught that we find all of these cases through Heter, and normally, that the one forbidden to this is permitted to this one.

However, the Mishnah discusses cases through rape.

Question (Ri): You cannot say that our Mishnah discusses Bito through rape, but not Nisu'in;

If so, why does the Gemara say that we do not find Bito through Nisu'in? Even if we found it through Nisu'in, R. Chiya's rule cannot apply to all cases of the Mishnah, which discusses [Bito] only through Ones!

Answer (Ri): Rather, the case of Bito is both through rape and through Nisu'in.

Inference: There is Kares for the wife of one's maternal brother, for our Tana holds that Chayavei Lavin do Chalitzah;

(Mishnah): If a Yevamah is forbidden due to Mitzvah or Kedushah (Sheniyos, i.e. Arayos mid'Rabanan, or Chayavei Lavin), she does Chalitzah, but not Yibum.

(Beraisa): Just like Achos Ishto is an Ervah and one is Chayav Kares for her if he was Mezid... [all such cases are exempt from Yibum and Chalitzah].

Question (Rabbeinu Shmuel): Toras Kohanim connotes that there is no Kares for her!

Citation (Toras Kohanim): "If a man will take Eshes Achiv" refers to the wife of his paternal brother;

Citation (cont.) Question: Why do you say that it refers to the wife of his paternal brother? Perhaps it refers [also] to the wife of his maternal brother!

Citation (cont.) Support: This is more reasonable. The Torah forbids Achos Aviv and Achos Imo, and it forbids Eshes Achiv;

Citation (cont.): Just like Achos Aviv and Achos Imo are forbidden whether they are paternal or maternal sisters [the same applies to Eshes Achiv]!

Citation (cont.) Answer: "Nidah Hi" - just like a Nidah has a Heter (i.e. through Tevilah, after seven days) and an Isur, also Eshes Ach has a Heter (Yibum) and an Isur;

Citation (cont.): This refers to the wife of his paternal brother, who has an Isur and a Heter;

Citation (cont.): If she has children, she is forbidden. If she has no children, she is permitted (through Yibum).

Note: Really, it depends on whether he (the brother who died) has children. (Most women marry when they are virgins, so if she has children, they are from him. Indeed, the text in Toras Kohanim says "he". Perhaps Tosfos, like the Gemara he cites below, discusses whether or not she has children for brevity, and assumes that the reader knows that this is not precise. Alternatively, it means that she "has" children who exempt her from Yibum, i.e. such children exist, i.e. children of her husband, whether or not they are hers.

Inference: This excludes the wife of his maternal brother. There is no Kares for her.

[Poor] Answer #1: The Drashah of Toras Kohanim does not come to exclude the wife of his maternal brother;

Rather, it teaches that there is Kares even for the wife of his paternal brother when he has no children in the life of her husband, even though she has a Heter after his death;

Just like a Nidah, even though she has a Heter later, when forbidden there is Kares for her, the same applies to Eshes Ach.

Support: Below (54a), we expound like this. (We say that the verse calls Eshes Achiv a Nidah to teach that just like one is liable for Nidah for Ha'ara'ah, also for Eshes Ach.)

Rejection #1: The words [of the Gemara] do not connote like this at all.

Rejection #2: The Yerushalmi says that [even though the Torah says that there is Kares for all the Arayos, it specifically wrote Kares regarding] Achoso (one's sister) to divide (teach that one is liable a Chatas for each Ervah);

[It says that it wrote Kares regarding] Dodaso (one's aunt) to punish with Ariri (one who transgresses will be childless);

It asks [why it wrote Kares regarding] Eshes Ach, and answered "to punish with Ariri";

After, R. Yosi says that Dodaso was needed to exclude the wife of his maternal brother;

Just like Dodaso is the wife of his father's paternal brother, like we learn there "Ervas Dodo" from "Dodo Oh Ben Dodo", which discusses his father's paternal brother, also Eshes Achiv discusses his paternal brother.

After this, it expounds "Nidah Hi" like the Toras Kohanim.

Summation of question: This shows that we come to exclude his maternal brother's wife!

Answer (R. Moshe): It comes to exclude [his maternal brother's wife] only from Ariri, which is written explicitly in that verse, but there is Kares.

Implied question: [The Toras Kohanim] wanted to learn from Achos Av and Achos Em that [also Eshes Achiv is] whether he is a paternal or maternal brother, even though it does not say Ariri regarding Achos Av and Achos Em! (This suggests that the question was not about Ariri.)

Answer: It relies on the Hekesh of R. Yonah (below, 54a. All of the Arayos are equated to each other).

From the Hekesh of the wife of his paternal brother, we equate all Arayos to be stringent [to say that Ariri applies], and we do not equate to the wife of his maternal brother to be lenient, which we exclude from "Nidah Hi."

Observation: We cannot explain like this according to Rashi, who says that in every case of Kares, he and his children are cut off; this is the difference between Kares and Misah b'Yedei Shamayim.

Rather, it is like Riva, who says that he and his children are cut off only for those Arayos about which it says Ariri.

The difference between Misah [b'Yedei Shamayim] and Kares is like the Yerushalmi says;

Kares is at 50, and it is derived from "do not cut off the Tribe of Kehas" (Bamidbar 4:18), and their service is until 50;

Misah [b'Yedei Shamayim] is at 60, like those who died in the Midbar. It says "Yitamu v'Sham Yamusu."

Possibility #2: The Yerushalmi argues with the Bavli (Mo'ed Katan 28a), which says that from 50 to 60 is Kares.

Possibility #2: [Alternatively,] we can say according to the Bavli that Misah b'Yedei Shamayim is after 60, and before this is Kares.

Question: According to the Riva what was the question below (55a) "why does it say Ariri regarding Dodaso"? We do not know that there is Ariri just because there is Kares!

Suggestion: From Eshes Ach we learn Ariri to all the Arayos.

Rejection: If so, it should have asked why it says Ariri regarding Eshes Ach, for it is written last! (We should learn all the Arayos from Dodaso, which is written first.)

Answer (Ri): In that Sugya, above we learned all of the Arayos from Nidah regarding Ha'ara'ah (it is considered full Bi'ah);

Therefore, we ask why Ariri needed to be written regarding Dodaso. We can learn also this from "Nidah", for it says regarding Eshes Achiv "Nidah Hi"!

Implied question: A Nidah [who fell to Yibum] should be forbidden to do Yibum, even though she becomes permitted later, just like Achos Ishto does not do Yibum, even if his wife died later [and the Isur Achos Ishto went away]!

Answer #1: Achos Ishto and the other Arayos are different, for they are forbidden to the Yavam more than to other men. A Nidah is forbidden to everyone.

Even while she is Nidah, Pesachim 72b connotes that Yibum applies to her!

Citation (R. Yochanan): If one had Bi'ah with Ishto Nidah, he is liable. If he had Bi'ah with his Yevamah while she was Nidah, he is exempt.

Citation (cont.) Rhetorical question: Presumably, his Yevamah is different, for he did a Mitzvah...

Inference: He acquired her.

Answer #2: Achos Ishto, even if his wife died later, she does not become Zekukah l'Yibum (obliged to do Yibum), since she was once exempted, for Deracheha Darchei No'am (the Torah's ways are pleasant), like it says below (87b);

Even when she was not totally expelled from the family, e.g. there are other brothers [with whom she may do Yibum], she is [permanently] forbidden to the one whose wife (her sister) died.

This is like it says below (27b), that any Yevamah for whom "Yevamah Yavo Aleha" does not apply at the time she fell to Yibum (when her husband died), she is like Eshes Ach with children, and she is forbidden.

It would not be Darchei No'am (pleasant) if she became Zekukah l'Yibum after she was exempted from him.

However, regarding Nidah it is Darchei No'am if she becomes Zekukah l'Yibum after she becomes Tehorah, for also to her husband she must wait until she becomes Tehorah!

Implied question: Regarding a minor [Yavam], Rabah says below (111b) "even without [a Drashah], you cannot say [that Yibum is forbidden until he matures]. Do we ever find that now she is forbidden to him, and later she is permitted to him? Rav said [if Yevamah Yavo Aleha did not apply when she fell, she is always forbidden]!

Answer: Also there, this is not Darchei No'am if she must wait until he matures (becomes Bar Mitzvah).

Implied question: If he is small, and he is not proper for Bi'ah, she must wait for him to grow up! (Less than nine years old, his Bi'ah is not considered Bi'ah.)

Answer: This is [not a breach of] Darchei No'am, since she does not wait due to Isur. It is as if her Yavam went overseas.

Explanation: An Ailonis is Kidushei Ta'os (it was a mistake. He would not have been Mekadesh her had he known that she is an Ailonis.) She was never Eshes Achiv.

Question: We say below (61b) that a minor Yavam and Yavamah do not do Chalitzah or Yibum... A minor Yavamah does not, lest she be found to be an Ailonis.

She should be able to do Yibum in any case! If she is not an Ailonis, it is a proper Yibum. Also if she is an Ailonis, it is permitted, for she was not Eshes Achiv!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): There, we discuss when he accepted [to marry her, even if she will be found to be an Ailonis]. We answer similarly in Sanhedrin 69b.

Answer #2 (R. Avraham of Borgvila): [Here,] she was found to be an Ailonis in the brother's lifetime, and he was adamant. (The Kidushin was Batel.) If [she was found to be an Ailonis] after he died, if he was alive, perhaps he would not have minded.

Rejection: The Tosefta explicitly says that if she was found to be an Ailonis, whether in the brother's lifetime or after he died, the Tzaros are permitted.

With Hash-m's help, in the Gemara I will explain the opinion that permits the Tzarah of Bito Ailonis, even if he recognized her [status], what is the Chidush of the Tosefta "whether in the brother's lifetime or after he died."

Question: Here the Gemara connotes that an Ailonis does not need a Get (even mid'Rabanan);

If she needed a Get, her Tzarah would do Chalitzah but not Yibum, like the Mishnah teaches that anyone who could do Mi'un, but did not...

Citation (Kesuvos 100b - Mishnah): One who did Mi'un, a Sheniyah or Ailonis has no Kesuvah.

Inference: She needs a Get. The Gemara infers like this in Kesuvos (73a).

Answer #1: There we use these words (has no Kesuvah), for we could not say that they do not need a Get, due to the case of a Sheniyah, which was taught with them (Mema'enes and Ailonis).

Support: You must say that Mema'enes does not need a Get.

Answer #2: In Kesuvos, we infer this (that she needs a Get) only because the Reisha taught "she is not Mekudeshes", and the Seifa says "she leaves without a Kesuvah."

Question: In Gitin (46b), a Mishnah says that if one divorced his wife because she is an Ailonis, he may not remarry her.

The Gemara explains that this is due to Kilkul (ruin). Perhaps she will marry someone else, have children from him, and he (her ex-husband) will say ["had I known that she can have children, I never would have divorced her"], and the Get was invalid and her children are Mamzerim!

Inference: She needs a Get!

Answer (Ri): There, he divorced her due to being a Safek Ailonis. The signs [of being an Ailonis] were not recognized well.

Support: The Seifa says "if she married someone else and had children..." There is no cure for a Vadai Ailonis!

Below (79b), R. Akiva and R. Eliezer argue about a Seris Chamah (he does not develop like a normal male), for he can be cured. We do not find that they argue about an Ailonis.

Implied question: If one was Mekadesh a woman with a Tenai [that she has no blemish, and she has a blemish] and had Nisu'in Stam [without mentioning the Tenai], one opinion (Kesuvos 72b) obligates a Get! (Perhaps he accepted the blemish. Likewise, perhaps he accepted an Ailonis!)

Answer: This is only regarding other Mumim, for some men pardon them. No [normal] man pardons an Ailonis.

Even according to Abaye, who explains the reason because a man does not have b,z, this is only regarding other Mumim, which cross his mind. He intends that even if there are Mumim, his Bi'ah is for the sake of Kidushin;

Ailonis is not common. It does not cross his mind. He does not have Bi'ah with intent for Kidushin in case she is an Ailonis.

Question: The case of Mi'un applies to Kidushei Ta'os!

(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): Even if her child is on her shoulder, she may do Mi'un and walk away [from her husband without a Get].

Answer #1 (Rivan): Our Mishnah discusses [Mi'un of] minors (but not of Kidushei Ta'os).

Answer #2 (Ri): Regarding Kidushei Ta'os, we can say that she does not need even Mi'un. Therefore, we could not teach in the Seifa "anyone who could have done Mi'un" [regarding Kidushei Ta'os].

"Mema'enes" in [Tana d'Vei] R. Yishmael's teaching is not precise. Even without Mi'un, she is not his wife. If she was Ervah [to the Yavam], her Tzarah is permitted [to do Yibum].

Retraction: Nidah 52a connotes that R. Yishmael discusses also Mi'un of minors, regarding R. Yishmael's daughter!

Citation (52a): She came to do Mi'un in the Beis Midrash. Her child was on her shoulder. There was great crying in the Beis Midrash. They said "will the child of that Tzadik stumble in something that he said?!"

Citation (cont.): They voted and concluded that a girl may do Mi'un until she brings two hairs [after 12 years] and walk away [from her husband without a Get].

Assertion: It was due to R. Yishmael [who disagrees] that they said that they voted.

Suggestion: Perhaps they voted due to R. Yehudah, who says [that she may do Mi'un] until the black [hairs] are the majority over the white!

Rejection: R. Yehudah agrees that she may not do Mi'un after Bi'ah.

Implied question: Below (100b), we ask "can it be that one who did Mi'un gave birth?!", and answer that it is possible through Kidushei Ta'os, like R. Yishmael.

Why didn't the Gemara answer that it is possible through Kidushin of a minor, which it was discussing?

Suggestion: It is because R. Yishmael agrees about Mi'un of minors [that one may not do Mi'un after she gave birth].

Rejection: No. Rather, that Sugya is according to Shmuel, who does not hold like R. Yishmael regarding Kidushin of minors. This is clear from Bava Basra 156b;

Regarding Kidushei Ta'os, Shmuel holds like him, like it says in Kesuvos (74a) "if one was Mekadesh on Tenai, and had Bi'ah with her, she does not need a Get." This is like R. Yishmael.

Answer: We must say that our Mishnah is unlike R. Yishmael. (He holds that a mother-in-law could do Mi'un.)

Question: The Gemara (9a) says that our Tana does not discuss matters that Tana'im argue about!

Answer: This refers to the 15 women. (He taught only Arayos that all agree about them. Tana'im argue about other matters taught in the Mishnah.)

Observation: There was no need to say this;

Even if Skilah were the most lenient of the four Misos of Beis Din, we should teach a daughter-in-law after a mother-in-law, since all the rest have no Misah. They have only Kares.

Explanation: This refers to Bito from rape, like Rashi explained. We learn Bito through marriage from Ervas Ishah u'Vitah. She is no less forbidden than his wife's daughter [from another man].

Question: How can we learn from there? We do not warn [for bodily punishments] through a Kal va'Chomer!

We say below (22b) regarding "Achoscha Vas Avicha Oh Vas Avicha" that the Torah needed to write "Achoscha Hi" to obligate for a sister from your father and mother, to teach that we do not warn through a Kal va'Chomer!

Answer (Ri): These are different. There, the verse discusses only a sister not from [both] the father and mother. "Vas Avicha Oh Vas Avicha" connotes from the father but not from the mother, and from the mother but not from the father.

This is like the verse explicitly explains, "Moledes Bayis Oh Moledes Chutz." The Targum of this is "was born from your father from another woman, or from your mother from another man."