Question: Why must we teach unlike Beis Shamai in two places?

Citation (below 30a - Mishnah): If two of three brothers were married to sisters... if the third gave a Ma'amar and then died, she does Chalitzah, but not Yibum.

In the Gemara, Rav Ashi teaches that she cannot do Yibum even if no Ma'amar was given, for Yesh Zikah. The Mishnah mentions Ma'amar to teach unlike Beis Shamai.

Answer: If not for the extra Mishnah, we would have explained our Mishnah simply. It connotes that [the Tzarah does Chalitzah] only because Ma'amar was given;

Rav, who holds that Ein Zikah, holds that from reasoning, we would say that Yesh Zikah. If not for the extra Mishnah, we would say that the Mishnah mentioned a Ma'amar to teach unlike Beis Shamai.

Explanation: We know this, for the Seifa says "these are R. Meir's words."

Implied question: [Also] above, when we asked [against Rav Yehudah] from our Mishnah, we could have answered that it is R. Meir [but the Halachah does not follow him]!

Answer: We preferred to establish the Stam Mishnah like him (Rav Yehudah).

Observation: The wording is awkward. It connotes that they could be from one house!

It should have said only "if there is no Zikah, this one should do Yibum with one...!

Observation: This is unlike R. Akiva, for he holds that even if he does Chalitzah, he was Mevatel Mitzvas Yevamin [from the other Yevamah]!

He expounds below (44a) "Beis Chalutz" - the verse calls him Beiso [as if the woman to whom he did Chalitzah was his wife];

Mid'Oraisa, the sister of his Chalutzah is like his wife's sister. (She is exempt even from Chalitzah.)

Question #1: Rabanan are not concerned for death! They hold that we do not prepare a second wife [for the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur] lest his wife die!

Question #2: R. Meir himself [allows to rely on Breirah to drink wine before tithing it. He] is not concerned lest the flask break, and not for death (Gitin 28a)!

Answer: They are not concerned for immediate death. Here, sometimes he delays a long time before doing Chalitzah or Yibum after the other (his brother). In a long time, all are concerned for death.

Implied question: Abaye compares concern lest he died to concern lest he will die. R. Meir is not concerned (there) lest he died, even after a long time!

If a Bas Yisrael was married to a Kohen, and he went overseas, she may eat Terumah based on the Chazakah that he is still alive.

Our Sugya is like Abaye, for it connotes that he accepted the answer [that we are concerned for Bitul Mitzvas Yevamin]!

Answer: Abaye does not totally equate them. Rather, concern lest he will die immediately is like concern lest he died over a long time.

Support: We do not totally equate them. R. Yehudah is concerned for immediate death (regarding the Kohen Gadol's wife);

If he were concerned lest one died immediately, a Kohen's wife would not be allowed to eat Terumah after her husband left the house. She could eat only when she sees her husband alive in front of her!

Question: One brother should do Chalitzah, and the other can do Yibum. Then there is no concern for Bitul Mitzvas Yevamin!

Answer #1: We decree lest they come to do Yibum first.

Answer #2 (Rivan): At the time they fell, both Yevamos were not proper for Yibum as long as Chalitzah was not done to one of them. (Therefore, even after Chalitzah, one may not do Yibum.)

Objection: The one who fell first should be permitted after the other does Chalitzah. She was permitted, forbidden, and returned to her initial Heter!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The older sister waits until her younger sister matures.

Objection: The words connote unlike this. It should not have said "this one", rather, only "she leaves due to Achos Ishah", since also "she waits" refers to the older sister!

Explanation #2: Rather, the younger sister waits before having Bi'ah until she matures. It is forbidden while she is a minor;

Even though he holds that Ein Zikah, it is repulsive, since through this Bi'ah the older sister is not exempted.

Explanation (Ri): Only if he was Mekadesh we tell him to delay Nisu'in, for at the time of Nisu'in it looks like he marries Achos Zekukaso;

If he already did Nisu'in, she is his full wife. Zikah was totally uprooted. He need not delay before having Bi'ah.

Distinction: This is only if he was Mekadesh after she fell to Yibum. This is clear below (41a), that we discuss one who was Mekadesh b'Isur;

We conclude that if his wife died, he is permitted to his Yevamah, because she was permitted, forbidden, and permitted again.

However, if he was Mekadesh b'Heter, he need not wait at all.

Question: Why must he wait? Since he was Mekadesh her, the Zikah was totally uprooted!

This is clear from below (29a). R. Elazar says that Beis Shamai do not hold that a Ma'amar does not totally acquire. Rather, it only dispels the Tzarah;

Citation (29a) Support (R. Avin - Mishnah - Beis Shamai): [If they both did Yibum,] they may remain married.

Inference: This is only b'Di'eved. If Ma'amar totally acquires, each brother may give a Ma'amar to a Yevamah to acquire her [to allow Yibum l'Chatchilah]!

Summation of question: Why is this difficult? Even if it totally acquires, we say that one must wait [even] if there was Kidushin mid'Oraisa!

Note: Aruch l'Ner asks that if it totally acquires, it is like Nisu'in, after which he need not wait!

Answer: This is fine, based on what I explained above why we consider R. Yehudah ben Beseirah to be a lone opinion;

We can say that according to R. Yehudah ben Beseirah, who holds that Yesh Zikah, Kidushin does not uproot Zikah;

However, R. Avin holds that Ein Zikah. Yibum is forbidden only due to Bitul Mitzvas Yevamin. Therefore, we ask that if Ma'amar fully acquires according to Beis Shamai, each should give a Ma'amar to a Yevamah to acquire her!

They can do the Ma'amarim through a Shali'ach simultaneously, so there is no Bitul Mitzvas Yevamin.

Question: Here we permit keeping her even according to R. Yehudah ben Beseirah. Below (26a), when both of them are married to sisters, which we brought above, the Seifa says that if they did Yibum, they must divorce them!

Answer (Ri): The case of four brothers is different, for the sisters will never be permitted. Each is Achos Zekukaso;

However, here, the sister of the Yevamah will become permitted after his brother does an act (Yibum or Chalitzah). Chachamim were not stringent to make him divorce her.

Question: Also in Kesuvos (12b) we say that Rav Yehudah's teaching was from Shmuel, and we do not ask "what would be difficult if it was from Rav?"!

Answer: Here, it connotes that Rav Yehudah said this in the name of Rav, for he taught this after Rav Huna said in the name of Rav that if a Shomeres Yavam died, the Yavam is permitted to her mother.

Question: Above (9b), regarding Levi's teaching, we said that the Tana does not discuss matters about which Tana'im argue, and asked from R. Oshaya, who said that R. Shimon argues even in the Reisha;

Also according to R. Oshaya, we find the case [of Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo] according to R. Shimon when there is only one brother [who was born after his brother died]!

We can also find a case in which she exempts her Tzarah and Tzaras Tzarah, based on what we say below that R. Shimon agrees that when there are two Yevamin, she is not considered like Nesu'ah [to either of them! I.e. Reuven had two brothers, and a third was born after Reuven died.]

Answer: The Mishnah of our Perek comes to explain the first Perek, for it teaches "what is the case of Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo?"

According to R. Oshaya, who said that R. Shimon argues even in the Reisha, we are forced to say that the Mishnah of the first Perek discusses an argument.