Question: Above, we taught that the daughter-in-law of his son's son is forbidden for all generations;

It seems that all the more so, the daughter of his son's son is forbidden for all generations, for they are his own relatives not due to Kidushin! (Why do we ask about this?)

Answer: There is reason to forbid the daughter-in-law of his son's son [and future generations], for they inherit, and they are frequent by him;

The daughter of his son's son [and future generations], do not inherit, and they are not frequent by him.

Question: Above, we say that we forbid converts [to their relatives], lest they say "we came from a higher Kedushah [to a lower Kedushah]";

Here, it connotes that the reason is lest they be confused with Yisrael [and Yisre'elim will permit Ervah], like Rashi explained!

Also below (97b), it connotes that the reason is lest they be confused, regarding the sons of the Shifchah Yudan. They were freed, and Rav Acha bar Yakov permitted them to marry each other's wives.

Citation (97b): If they are maternal but not paternal brothers, all agree that they are forbidden. If they are paternal but not maternal brothers, all agree that they are permitted;

Citation (cont.): They argue about brothers from the mother and father, about why people will say that full brothers were permitted. [Do people call them the sons of Ploni, and view them as paternal brothers, or also call them the sons of Plonis, and view them also as maternal brothers?]

We are not concerned for confusion [with Yisrael], since they are also paternal brothers, so they will not be confused, for they are attributed to the father;

Nochrim have no kinship from the father, for it says v'Zirmas Susim Zirmasam, and there is no reason to decree due to [confusion with] Yisrael.

Answer: We need both of these reasons;

Regarding kinship from the father that was forbidden to them before conversion, confusion does not apply, for all know that the Torah uprooted a Nochri's seed (after he converts, he is not considered related to his children);

An example of this is his father's wife according to R. Akiva, and his father's sister according to R. Eliezer;

Citation (Sanhedrin 58a - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): "Al Ken Ya'azov Ish Es Aviv v'Es Imo" refers to his father's sister. R. Akiva says, it is his father's wife.

The reason [we forbid this to converts] is lest they say "[we came from a higher Kedushah...]";

However, we permit his father's wife according to R. Eliezer, and his father's sister according to R. Akiva. "Lest they say" does not apply, and not confusion.

However, Arayos from the mother, who were not forbidden before, we forbid due to confusion, but "lest they say" does not apply.

Explanation: There (58a), we say that if one married his maternal sister, he must divorce her. This is due to confusion. "Lest they say" does not apply, since they were not forbidden when they were Nochrim.

[If one married his] paternal sister, he may keep her. Confusion does not apply to paternal kin.

Support: This is the reason why maternal brothers may not testify [together] l'Chatchilah, due to confusion. Paternal brothers may testify [together] l'Chatchilah.

Explanation: The Gemara explains that this includes a Mamzer.

Implied question: We know this from the Reisha! A Bas Yisrael who fell to a Nasin or Mamzer does Chalitzah, but not Yibum.

Answer: If from there, one might have thought that this is when both of them are Mamzerim, but when the Mes was Kosher, his Mamzer brother does not cause the widow to fall to Yibum.

Question: Why is this obvious? We need it to teach that [even if he was conceived] from Chayavei Kerisos, he is his brother, and we do not exclude him due to "someone [born from a woman] who could be married to your father"!

We ask this below (23a) that according to R. Yosi bar Yehudah, we should say "someone whom could be married to your father", to exclude Chayavei Kerisos!

Answer #1: We could have answered this. We preferred to answer that we need it, for otherwise we would have learned [a Gezeirah Shavah] Achvah-Achvah from Bnei Yakov;

This is why we need "Ben Ein Lo" - investigate him (for all possible children) to teach that [even] a Mamzer exempts from Yibum;

[The verse teaches that] we do not say that we learn Achvah-Achvah from Bnei Yakov that a Mamzer is not Zokek l'Yibum, and since he is not Zokek, he does not exempt from Yibum.

Answer #2 (Ri): We ask that obviously, since we taught that he is his brother in every way, obviously he is Zokek l'Yibum;

We answer that even though he is his brother in every way, one might have thought that he is not Zokek, for we learn Achvah-Achvah from Bnei Yakov;

Afterwards, he asks [why do we need] "he is his brother in every way", i.e. for inheritance and to become Tamei for him [to bury him]? This is obvious!

Explanation: Since he is Zokek l'Yibum, even though one might have thought to learn from Bnei Yakov, all the more so [he is his brother] for other matters.

Implied question: Here we do not ask "this is obvious. He is his son!" like we asked above (22a) "this is obvious. He is his brother!";

Just the contrary! [Here] we ask "what is the reason [why he is considered his son]?"!

Answer: This is because above, we answered that we would have learned Achvah-Achvah from Bnei Yakov...

Therefore, here we ask why we do not learn from Bnei Yakov that he is not Zokek. If so, also he would not exempt.

Implied question: A Stam brother or son can even be a Mamzer, like we asked above "this is obvious. He is his brother!";

Answer: Also here, we need "u'Ven Ein Lo Ayen Alav" only so we will not learn from Bnei Yakov.

Implied question: Why do we need "v'Zera Ein Lah Ayen Alah" (regarding a Bas Kohen widowed from a Yisrael? She returns to eat Terumah only if she has no descendants from him.)

Answer: This is because Stam "Zera" refers to only to Kosher descendants, like it says (Kidushin 4a) "I would know only Kosher Zera. What is the source to include Pasul Zera?"

Note: The Maharshal added the bracketed words. The Rashash says that we need not add them, just we delete the "Dalet" before "Stam".

Distinction: Regarding grandchildren, the connotations are opposite. Zera connotes even grandchildren like it connotes there "we do need a verse for Zera of her Zera. Grandchildren are like children;

Ben connotes only a child, like it says in Bava Basra (115a) "I would know only a son [that he inherits before a daughter]. What is the source for the son of the son, daughter of the son, and son of the daughter of the son?

Explanation (Ri): From "Ayen Alav" here regarding Yibum, we cannot expound that the son of the daughter or the daughter of the son exempts from Yibum, since we use it to include a Mamzer;

This is why we need to bring the son of the son or the daughter of the son regarding inheritance,

We cannot learn "just like the son and son's son are the same regarding Yibum, also regarding inheritance", the way we do learn there (109a) from Yibum [that] a daughter [is like a son].

Question: We should expound oppositely regarding inheritance to include a Mamzer, and from "Ein Lo" regarding Yibum, expound the son's son!

Answer: Regarding inheritance, we need not include a Mamzer, for he is his son in every way;

However, regarding Yibum one might have thought that to learn from Bnei Yakov. Therefore the verse of inheritance comes to include the son's son.

Implied question: In Bava Basra, why is it obvious that regarding Yibum, sons and daughter are the same?

Answer #1 (Ri): We learn from "Lo Yimacheh", to exclude one whose name is not obliterated [even if he has only a daughter].

Answer #2: A daughter and Mamzer are equally reasonable to include. We include also a daughter from Ayen Alav here.

Question (Ri): How can we say that a daughter and Mamzer are equal?

Since we can establish Ayen Alav to include a daughter, what is the source to establish it even for a Mamzer, since Achvah-Achvah implies that we exclude a Mamzer?

Answer: Since we need Achvah-Achvah for another Drashah, we do not use it to exclude a Mamzer regarding Yibum, since he is considered a son and brother in every way, and also regarding Yibum we can include him along with a daughter from Ayen Alav;

Therefore, even though we need it to include a daughter, we do not refrain due to this from including a Mamzer.

Proof: Below (35), Reish Lakish expounds it for a different matter, and even so he includes a Mamzer from it.

Implied question: In Sanhedrin (85), we say that a son cannot be a Shali'ach [of Beis Din] to lash or curse his father, except for Mesis (an enticer. Here we say that one may curse a Rasha!)

Answer: The case is, he repented.

Question: Granted, we find that one receives lashes even though he repented. However, one may not curse one who repented, even another [not his father]!

Answer: If he mentioned Hash-m's name in vain, or did something for which one is excommunicated, even though he did Teshuvah, he is not exempted.