Question: Below, we conclude that Shmuel discusses whether he started [doing Chalitzah with the sisters] or did not start [with them, rather, with the sisters];

If he started [doing Chalitzah] with the sisters, he may not finish with the Tzaros, and Rachel is not exempted through Chalitzah of her Tzarah, and all the more so when both of them (Rachel and her Tzarah) are equal, we require Chalitzah from both of them!

According to this answer [here], we do not distinguish between exempting herself and exempting her Tzarah.

Answer (Ri): The one who explains below that Shmuel discusses whether or not he started, holds like the opinion below that distinguishes between exempting herself and exempting her Tzarah;

The answer here that "one does Chalitzah to all of them" refers to the middle one, holds like Rav Ashi, who says below that Zikah is not strong enough to make the Tzarah like Ervah, so Chalitzah of the Tzarah is a Kosher Chalitzah.

Therefore, if he did Chalitzah to the sister, the Tzaros are not exempted.

However, here both of them are equal, so one does Chalitzah to all of them.

Explanation: It is a Kosher Chalitzah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [This is] because if he wanted, he could do Yibum with her.

Rejection: This is forbidden, due to Bitul Mitzvas Yevamin!

Explanation #2: Even so, it is not considered Chalitzah Pesulah, like I explained above (26b DH v'Chalitzah).

Explanation: Since we established "if he did Chalitzah to the sisters, the Tzaros are not exempted" to refer only to Rachel's Tzarah, and because he [already] did Chalitzah to Leah...

Similarly, when he [first] did Chalitzah to Leah, [we should say that after this,] if he did Chalitzah to the Tzaros (i.e. Rachel's Tzarah), the sisters (i.e. Rachel) are not exempted! (This is like Mahadura Basra of the Maharsha, DH Ela. Tosfos comes to answer why we didn't explain Shmuel simply, that "he did Chalitzah to the Tzaros" means to both Tzaros. Tosfos explains that the question was, just like "... the Tzaros are not exempted" means Rachel's Tzarah, similarly, "if [after Chalitzas Leah] he did Chalitzah to the Tzaros", i.e. Rachel's Tzarah, the sisters (Rachel) are not exempted! Therefore, we are forced to say that Shmuel meant "if he started...)

Explanation: Now, according to the conclusion, we do not hold that Shmuel taught according to the opinion that Ein Zikah.

Really, according to the opinion that Ein Zikah, if he did Chalitzah to the sisters or Ba'alas ha'Get, the Tzaros are exempted;

Rather, Shmuel taught according to his own opinion, that Yesh Zikah.

Implied question: [If we retracted,] why didn't the Gemara say "Ela"?

Answer: It is because no Amora was mentioned before [regarding the premise from which we retract].

Explanation #1: The case is, he did Chalitzah to Leah before Rachel and her Tzarah fell. Therefore, if he started [doing Chalitzah] with Leah's Tzarah, he may finish even with Rachel;

This is because when Rachel fell, Leah was already exempted through her Tzarah's Chalitzah, so Rachel's Chalitzah is Kosher. She was merely the relative of the Tzarah of his Chalutzah (who is permitted).

Question: This is slightly difficult. The Gemara should have explained that we discuss when they fell one after the other, since until now we discussed when they fell at once!

Explanation #2 (Ri): We can say that this is even if they fell at once, like we thought until now;

Even so, if he started with Leah's Tzarah, he may finish with Rachel.

Implied question: Chalitzah of the Tzarah [of Leah] was Chalitzah Pesulah, for it was Chalitzah of Tzaras Achos Ishah through Zikah. It did not exempt Leah!

Answer: Even so, Rachel's Chalitzah is Kosher, and even if he does Chalitzah to Leah first before Rachel, since Leah had only a little Zikah left, since her Tzarah already did a stronger Chalitzah.

Therefore, Rachel is not considered Achos Chalutzaso, similar to what R. Avraham explained above.

Implied question: Before he did Chalitzah to Leah's Tzarah, Rachel was already forbidden. Shmuel holds below (40b) that if she was once forbidden to him, she is permanently forbidden to him!

Answer: Even so, Rachel's Chalitzah is Kosher, since now she is not Achos Zekukaso, and she is forbidden to him only because she was once forbidden to him.

Implied question: Why can't we say that also the Beraisa discusses whether or not he started [with the sisters]?

Answer: If so, it should have explicitly explained so. However, Shmuel discusses also Ba'alas ha'Get and Ba'alas Ma'amar, so he used an expression that applies to all of them.

Question: [Perhaps] indeed, she may do Yibum! Even so, the Mishnah discusses Chalitzah, to teach that a Chalitzah Pesulah does not exempt;

This is like Shmuel, according to the version that he discusses whether or not he started [with the sisters. Also] he could have discussed Yibum!

Answer: Shmuel did not discuss Yibum, for a Mishnah teaches this - "he is permitted to the relative [of the Tzarah of his Chalutzah];

However, the Beraisa should have taught Yibum, which is preferable. Alternatively, it should have taught both [Chalitzah and Yibum].

Observation: He gives this difficult answer, for he holds that it is unreasonable to say that Zikah is not strong enough to make the Tzarah like Ervah.

Explanation #1: This means that a greater action was done to her than to her colleague (Tzarah. Her Zikah is weaker, so it is better to do Chalitzah to her Tzarah.)

Explanation #2 (Rivan): Ba'alas ha'Get is preferable. Since he began to divorce her, he finishes his Chalitzah with her.

Observation: According to this, "Adifa (preferable)" here means [it is better to do Chalitzah to her,] unlike "if Ma'amar is Adif or Get is Adif" below [which means that it is stronger, and the other does not take effect after it. This favors Explanation #1.]

However, there is a small connotation that "Adifa" refers to precedence. This refers to "which has precedence" that we said at the beginning [of this Sugya. This favors Rivan.]

Question: Why can't we learn from Rabanan, who say below (50a) that there is Get after Get and Ma'amar after Get? (This shows that Ma'amar is Adif!)

Answer: We cannot learn from Rabanan. They hold that there is Get after Get. Even though the first is Adif, the weaker one afterwards takes effect on what the first left over;

However, R. Gamliel holds that Ein Get after Get. It is logical that if Get were stronger than Ma'amar, or if Ma'amar were stronger than Get, the weaker would not take effect after the first, which is Adif, just like Get after Get and Ma'amar after Ma'amar do not take effect.

Implied question: Kidushin takes effect even after Chalitzah [even though it is stronger than Ma'amar. Perhaps similarly, even though Get is stronger than Ma'amar, Ma'amar takes effect after it!]

Answer #1: That is because it is Kidushin mid'Oraisa. Regarding a Yevamah, Ma'amar is only mid'Rabanan. It would not take effect after a Get if a Get were stronger.

Answer #2 (Ri): The Beraisa "R. Gamliel admits" refers to the Mishnah (50a), which we establish in the Gemara like R. Akiva.

[R. Akiva] holds that Kidushin does not take effect after Chalitzah, and likewise it would not take effect after a Get if a Get were stronger, for a Get is in place of Chalitzah.

Explanation: We resolve that one exempts the other. This is like Shmuel, according to the version that one does Chalitzah to all of them, i.e. the middle one, like Rav Ashi;

However, according to the version [that Shmuel discusses] whether or not he started [doing Chalitzah with the sisters], when they are the same, both of them need Chalitzah;

Proof: When he started with the sisters, he may not finish even with the Tzaros. Rachel is not exempted through the stronger Chalitzah of her Tzarah.

Observation: We must say that this question is according to the opinion that Yesh Zikah, for according to the opinion that Ein Zikah, even if he did Chalitzah to Ba'alas ha'Get, her Tzarah is exempted.

Question: What is the Chidush? This is obvious!

Answer (Ri): This teaches that she is permitted, [and] even her Tzarah;

This is because Rav holds that Ein Zikah, and if he did Chalitzah to the sisters, the Tzaros are exempted, like I explained above.

Implied question: Why didn't we ask from an explicit Mishnah in our Perek?

Citation (32a - Mishnah): If two brothers were married to two sisters, and one brother died, and then the other's wife died, his Yevamah is forever forbidden, since she was [once] forbidden.

Answer #1: The Gemara prefers to ask from Rav, who himself said the exact words of R. Yochanan, that any Yevamah to whom we cannot apply...

Answer #2: We could not ask from the Mishnah, for there it is because she was already permitted to marry strangers. Because the Yavam's wife died afterwards, she should not be Zekukah for Chalitzah;

However, we do not say so when she still needs Chalitzah.

However, the question from Rav is proper. Rav discusses even when there are brothers, and she was not totally rejected from the house, like we say below.

Explanation (R. Chananel): Rav teaches like he taught elsewhere, that Ein Zikah. Even though she is forbidden due to Bitul Mitzvas Yevamin, this Isur is not important enough to forbid her permanently, even when she comes to Heter (i.e. the reason to forbid goes away);

However, according to the opinion that Yesh Zikah, it is proper to forbid her permanently, because she was once forbidden.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Above, Rashi explained that we ask also according to Rav.

Explanation #2 (Rivan): We do not ask according to Rav, for Rav holds that Chalitzah Pesulah must be repeated with all the brothers;

One Yevamah needs Chalitzah from both of them, and then the second cannot do Yibum, for to each [Yavam] she is Achos Chalutzaso;

Distinction: However, R. Yochanan holds like Shmuel, that she need not repeat Chalitzah. Therefore, we ask according to him.

Implied question: Rav taught according to the opinion that Yesh Zikah, but he disagrees! (We could ask also according to Rav himself!)

Answer: In any case, we can say that Rav establishes it like the opinion that Yesh Zikah, for Tana'im argue about this.

Implied question: Above (18a), the Stam Gemara established the Mishnah like R. Meir, who says that Ein Zikah!

Answer: Rav does not establish the Mishnah like him.

Support (for Explanation #2): R. Chananel explained above that Rav, who does not hold that "since she was once forbidden...", teaches like he taught elsewhere, that Ein Zikah.

We understand why R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina did not ask against Rav, for Rav establishes it like the opinion that Yesh Zikah.

However, R. Yochanan must hold that Yesh Zikah. If not, two sisters who fell to two brothers should both do Yibum, for R. Yochanan is not concerned for death!

From R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina's question "what is the reason? One [brother should do Chalitzah, and the other Yibum] connotes that R. Yochanan permits only one of them [to do Yibum]! We are forced to say that he holds that Yesh Zikah.

Even so, [R. Yochanan] permits the first [to fall to do Yibum]. He does not hold "since once she was forbidden, she is permanently forbidden." Therefore, [R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina] challenged him.

Explanation #2A (Ri): I explained above that Rav is concerned for death, since he (a brother) does not consider that the other brother might die. Therefore, we cannot ask against him. [He holds that] we decree lest a brother do Yibum first.

However, above, when one of the Yevamos died, we cannot decree lest he come to do Yibum without death of one of them, for there is only one [live] brother. He would not come to overtly be Mevatel Mitzvas Yevamin!

However, R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina knew that R. Yochanan is not concerned for death. Therefore he asked against him.

Alternatively, because R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina was by R. Yochanan, he challenged him (but he could have challenged Rav, also).

Explanation #1 (Ri, according to Rashi): When they come in front of us to ask what to do, we do not tell them to do Chalitzah to the second and Yibum to the first. This is a decree, lest these very Yevamos switch the order;

However, if one already did Chalitzah to the second, the other [Yavam] may do Yibum to the first, just like when the second died, since for these Yevamos there is no concern.