Question: If so, "one who has Zikah of one Yavam on her..." is not a real Drashah, rather, a mere Asmachta;

This is difficult, for in Gitin (82b) we say "how does the case of Eshes Shnei Mesim arise"? This implies that it is mid'Oraisa, in [at least] one place.

Answer #1: Tana'im argue about this. This is clear from below (96b), regarding a nine year-old boy who had Bi'ah with his Yevamah, and after he matured he married another woman and died;

His second wife does Chalitzah or Yibum. His first wife, who has Zikah of two Yevamim on her, does Chalitzah, but not Yibum.

The Gemara asks that we should make the Bi'ah of a nine year-old boy like the Ma'amar of an adult, and the Tzarah will be rejected from Yibum, i.e. like here (a Ma'amar forbids her to do Yibum).

It concludes according to R. Yochanan that they did so. The Tana of our Sugya argues with that Tana;

The Tana of our Sugya decrees due to the Tzarah. I.e. he forbids Ba'alas Ma'amar because there is a Tzarah with her, like he decreed in our Sugya, lest he do Chalitzah and afterwards Yibum, like Rashi explained;

However, she is not forbidden due to Zikas two Yevamim, for it is not mid'Oraisa.

Distinction: When there is no Tzarah with her, she is forbidden due to when there is a Tzarah, like Rava said above there, that even when there is no Tzarah, she does Chalitzah, but not Yibum.

Explanation: The Tana there does not decree due to the Tzarah. I.e. he forbids the one who had Bi'ah with the nine year-old to do Yibum, not due to the Tzarah, rather, due to Eshes Shnei Mesim, which is mid'Oraisa elsewhere;

They decreed only about her, but not about her Tzarah. They did not want to be stringent also about the Tzarah due to Eshes Shnei Mesim.

[The question] in Gitin (82b) [how does the case of Eshes Shnei Mesim arise?] is like that Tana.

Answer #2 (Rivan): All agree that Eshes Shnei Mesim is mid'Oraisa. The Tana here decrees even regarding Eshes Shnei Mesim due to the Tzarah, i.e. Ba'alas Ma'amar;

He holds that since elsewhere Eshes Shnei Mesim is mid'Oraisa, we are stringent even in other [cases when it is mid'Rabanan].

The Tana there is not so stringent, and does not decree about the wife of the nine year-old due to Ba'alas Zikas two Yevamim.

Question #1: Here we conclude that the reason for this Tana is the decrees we explain here!

Question #2: There, Rava calls his wife "Tzarah", and also says that they should make the Bi'ah of a nine year-old boy like a Ma'amar of an adult, and reject the Tzarah... Here we call Ba'alas Ma'amar the Tzarah!

Conclusion: Rivan himself asked these two questions. The Ri's Perush is primary.

Question (Rivan): A Mishnah (below 50a) says that there is Ma'amar after Ma'amar. If one gave a Ma'amar to each of two Yevamos, they need two Gitin and Chalitzah, whether there is one Yavam to two Yevamos, or two Yevamim to one Yevamah;

He may not do Yibum to one of them. According to Rava, he can give a Get for his Ma'amar, and not for his Zikah, and do Yibum to the other!

Answer: One may not do so l'Chatchilah. We decree [to forbid Yibum when he gave] a Get for his Ma'amar, due to a Get for his Zikah;

Here, Rava said only b'Di'eved that even she is permitted. Since there is no more need to decree about this Ma'amar due to other Ma'amaros in general, we do not decree, since it is not so common;

However, l'Chatchilah we decree due to this Ma'amar itself.

Implied question: We learn from this clause that she is forbidden even though she became proper [for Yibum, i.e. the impediment to Yibum, i.e. the Isur of Achos Ishah, went away] during this fall to Yibum;

We do not learn this from the previous Mishnah, like we said above (30a)!

Answer: Even so, since she was totally dispelled from this house, obviously she is forbidden, even though she became proper in this fall;

Above, we said the reason of becoming proper in this fall because we did not yet think of the reason of being dispelled from the house.

Implied question: In such a case, Beis Shamai permit the Tzarah to do Yibum (above 8a)!

Since the Isur of Eshes Ach did not take effect, this is considered not in the situation of the Mitzvah [of Yibum]!

Answer: R. Shimon disagrees, for in any case she is his brother's wife.

Implied question: Since the Isur of Eshes Ach did not take effect [we should permit the Tzarah to do Yibum]!

Answer: [Even so,] the Tzarah may not do Yibum since the Isur of Eshes Ach did not go away;

This is like an Ailonis, who forbids her Tzarah, even though she (the Ailonis) herself has only the Isur of Eshes Achiv.

Question: According to R. Shimon, we find a paternal brother who exempts the Tzarah (here, for the Isur of Achos Ishah did not take effect). It should be listed with the 15 women, according to the opinion that lists matters that Tana'im argue about!

Likewise, a Yevamah who is permanently forbidden because she was once forbidden, also she exempts her Tzarah. We should list also her!

Answer: Since these are forbidden due to Achos Ishah, they are included in Achos Ishah.

Explanation: This is not [necessarily] because it was the first Isur, for in any case one who is liable two different deaths receives the more stringent one.

Question: Perhaps R. Yosi holds that also Isur Kolel [is Chal Al Isur]!

Answer (Ri): [The Tartzan] holds that a married woman who became his mother-in-law is also an Isur Kolel, for since he becomes forbidden to his wife's other relatives, [also the Isur of her mother takes effect], and it says that he is liable [only] for Eshes Ish.

Distinction: However, the Ri says that the version below in which R. Chiya holds that R. Yosi obligates twice for an Isur Kolel must hold that a married woman who became his mother-in-law is not considered an Isur Kolel;

Even though he becomes forbidden to his wife's other relatives, since they are not the same Shem (Isur) as a mother-in-law [it is not considered Kolel].

We must say so to avoid a contradiction in R. Yosi.

Implied question: We consider an Isur Kolel a Ba'al Mum who served while Tamei. Initially he was allowed to eat Kodshim and forbidden to do Avodah;

When he became Tamei, since he became forbidden to eat, he is forbidden also [a second Isur] in Avodah!

Answer: Eating and Avodah are considered one Shem, for both are forbidden in an expression of Kerivah;

Regarding Avodah it says "Kol Ish Asher Bo Mum Lo Yigash Lehakriv Lechem..."

Regarding eating b'Tum'ah it says "Ish Asher Yikrav mi'Kol Zar'achem..."

This verse discusses eating, like it says in Me'ilah (10b) and Zevachim (45b).

Distinction: However, the Ri says that Isur Mosif is even when the Shemos are not the same. This is clear from Kerisus 14b, regarding one who has Bi'ah with his daughter's daughter is liable for his daughter-in-law... It is not proper to elaborate here.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The text does not say this, for even if the Isur of Eshes Ish takes effect on her, she is judged with the more stringent one. (It is not in our text of the Gemara.)

Suggestion: He understands that she is judged for Chamoso, and the Isur Eshes Ish does not take effect on her at all. If they did not warn him for Chamoso, only for Eshes Ish, he is exempt.

Rejection: In Sanhedrin (81a), Rav Ada bar Ahavah asked "he should be judged also for Eshes Ish, for R. Avahu taught that R. Yosi agrees about an Isur Mosif;

Citation (81b) Answer [Rava]: Ada my son, do you want to kill him twice?!

Inference: The Isur Eshes Ish takes effect, just he is judged for the more stringent Isur.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): The text is fine. [The Makshan] erred here like Rav Ada bar Ahavah erred there, and thought that he is judged for the more stringent Isur because the Isur Eshes Ish does not take effect on her at all.

The Gemara did not deem it necessary to answer (explain the Makshan's mistake), since in any case we need a different answer due to the first question.

Observation: According to the conclusion here, R. Avahu did not need to say that R. Yosi agrees about an Isur Mosif.

Even so, in Sanhedrin (81a) we bring R. Avahu, because the truth is that R. Yosi agrees about an Isur Mosif.

Kerisus (14b) connotes like this, regarding R. Yosi's teaching "if the elder (his father) transgressed and married her, he (his son) is liable for her [also] for Eshes Av.

Therefore, R. Avahu needed to conclude like this.

Explanation: He is buried among Resha'im like himself [who transgressed two Isurim]. We do not bury a Rasha near a Tzadik [or near a lesser Rasha].

Rashi's opinion: Rashi explained that he is buried among people who are stoned and burned. This is wrong.

Explanation (cont.): R. Shimon holds that even though there are two Isurim in this Aveirah, since he is liable only for one of them, we do not bury him among utter Resha'im.

Implied question: Why didn't they discuss a Zar, like they did above?

Answer: Zarim were not commanded about [serving] amidst Tum'ah. Only Kohanim were - "Daber El Aharon v'El Banav va'Yinazru..."

Implied question: We say that Tum'ah was forbidden to everyone!

Answer: It means [to all Kohanim,] even Ba'alei Mumim.