Implied question: Why didn't he (Rava) say that it is obvious to him that a Get Vadai dispels and a Ma'amar Vadai acquires? (I.e. therefore Ein Get Acher Get and Ein Ma'amar Acher Ma'amar.)

Answer: If so, Ma'amar after Get would not help, and Get after Ma'amar would not help.

Implied question: He still did not know the Beraisa brought below, that R. Gamliel agrees that there is Get after Ma'amar [and Ma'amar after Get]!

Answer: The Mishnah connotes to him (Rava) that there is Get after Ma'amar according to R. Gamliel;

Only Get after Get and Ma'amar after Ma'amar do not help, but Ma'amar after Get or vice-versa helps.

Explanation #1: The latter Ma'amar cannot take effect where the first Ma'amar took effect. Bi'ah Pesulah takes effect after Ma'amar, [on] the very side itself that the Ma'amar acquired.

It is reasonable that it takes effect only on the same side that the Ma'amar acquires, for both of them are to acquire;

This is because it is better than Ma'amar, because it is mid'Oraisa.

It is weaker than Ma'amar, because Ma'amar after Get acquires everything that Get left over, for a [second] Ma'amar does not help after it;

Bi'ah does not acquire everything that Get left over, for a Ma'amar helps after it.

If Bi'ah acquired everything that Get left over, Ma'amar would not help after it to take effect on what Bi'ah was Tofes, because Bi'ah is preferable and stronger, since it is mid'Oraisa, like I explained.

Explanation #1 (cont.): He comes to explain the reason, so you will not ask that Bi'ah is preferable to Ma'amar, even though it is also weaker than Ma'amar.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): 1. Bi'ah does not acquire everything that Get left over, for there is Bi'ah after Bi'ah Pesulah (i.e. it takes effect to obligate a Get. Our text of Rashi does not say so - Maharam.)

Question: We do not explicitly find this, that R. Gamliel holds that there is Bi'ah after Bi'ah Pesulah!

Answer: We can infer this, that R. Gamliel holds that there is Bi'ah after Bi'ah Pesulah;

If there were not Bi'ah after Bi'ah Pesulah, because the entire Kinyan proper for Bi'ah, the first Bi'ah did it, and the latter cannot be Tofes after it, even though the first did not acquire everything that Get left over...

If so, what would be his source that Ma'amar acquires everything that Get left over?

Perhaps Get and Ma'amar leave over, but a Ma'amar afterwards has no power to take effect on what remains, just like there is no Bi'ah after Bi'ah Pesulah, even though it left over in order that a Ma'amar acquires after it!

Observation: The Tana'im do not all agree;

Beis Shamai holds that it acquires mid'Oraisa, like it connotes above (29a). All the other Tana'im hold that it acquires only mid'Rabanan;

R. Gamliel holds that it acquires only in this respect, that a Ma'amar after it does not acquire;

Ben Azai distinguishes between two Yevamim and one Yevamah, and between one Yavam and two Yevamos;

R. Shimon is unsure whether or not it acquires.

Support: We find like this in Sukah 7b. (It says that several Tana'im hold that Sukah is Diras Keva, but they argue with each other.)

Explanation: This is a Mishnah below (96b). The first Tana says that the latter disqualifies her to the first.

Question #1: R. Shimon should agree that she is forbidden to the first, because she was Mezanah while married to him!

Answer #1 (Rashi): A woman is forbidden to her husband only through Kinuy and Stirah (warning not to be secluded, and seclusion).

Rebuttal (Ri): This is a printing mistake. Rashi never said so. Through one witness, she is forbidden only through Kinuy and Stirah, but through witnesses of Tum'ah (Zenus), she is forbidden without Kinuy!

Suggestion: Because this Nisu'in is only mid'Rabanan, Chachamim were not concerned to forbid [due to Zenus].

Rejection: Everything Chachamim enacted, they enacted like Torah law!

Question #2: [Also according to R. Shimon,] she should be forbidden to the first due to Rav Hamnuna's law, that a Shomeres Yavam who was Mezanah is forbidden to the Yavam!

Answer #2 (Ri): The case is, the latter had Bi'ah with her b'Shogeg, so she is not forbidden.

Answer #3: The case is, she is a minor. Enticement of a minor is like Ones.

Answer #4: The case is, he forced her;

Implied question: Chachamim made Bi'ah of a nine year-old boy like a Ma'amar, and a Ma'amar b'Al Korchah does not help, like it says above (19b)!

Chachamim made Bi'ah of a nine year-old b'Al Korchah like a Ma'amar with her consent, for we do not distinguish Bi'ah of a Yevamah between with [her] consent and b'Al Korchah.

Rashi's opinion: Rashi says that the primary text says "Ein Ma'amar Acher Ma'amar when there are two Yevamos and one Yavam";

Source: Below (53a), on [the clause of] the Mishnah of one who gave a Ma'amar to this and to this... (Ma'amar after Ma'amar takes effect from one Yavam to two Yevamos), we say that the Mishnah is unlike Ben Azai.

Rebuttal (Ri): The opposite text is fine! Below, the Gemara relies on the Seifa, which says "whether there are two Yevamim and one Yevamah." (It equates this to one Yavam to two Yevamos.)

The Gemara said so regarding this clause of a Ma'amar to each, to explain that regarding this we say that the Mishnah is unlike Ben Azai. (Had it said so regarding "whether there are two Yevamim...", we would not know in what way this is unlike Ben Azai, for many other cases were taught in between.)

Support: Similarly, below (53a) it teaches that if he gave a Get to each, they need from him Chalitzah;

We conclude that this supports Rabah bar Rav Huna, who says that Chalitzah Pesulah must be repeated with all of the brothers.

Implied question: There is no support from there to distinguish exempting herself from exempting the Tzarah, like it says above (27a)!

Answer: Rather, it relies on the Seifa, which says "whether there are two Yevamim and one Yevamah."

Alternate text: Some texts say [below] "what is the case? He gave a Ma'amar to his Yevamah... until "whether there are two Yevamim and one Yevamah", and regarding this we conclude that the Mishnah is unlike Ben Azai.

Explanation: The same applies after a Ma'amar.

Question: Below (53b), it explains that R. Nechemyah's reason is that we need not decree Bi'ah after a Get or Ma'amar due to Bi'ah after Chalitzah or Bi'ah. Since Chalitzah and Bi'ah are mid'Oraisa, people know [that nothing follows them];

If so, what is the source that there is nothing after Ma'amar?

Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak b'Ribi Baruch): You are forced to say that R. Nechemyah holds that Get and Ma'amar are mid'Oraisa. We learn from a Kal va'Chomer from other women. (Chalitzah does not work for them, but Get does. Chalitzah works for a Yevamah, all the more so Get does! - Kidushin 14a. One might have thought that "v'Lakchah Lo l'Ishah" teaches that a Yevamah is acquired just like a woman, i.e. even through money or a document.)

He does not hold like the exclusions (Kidushin 14a, which show that they do not work for a Yevamah).

Source: You cannot say that R. Nechemyah holds that they are only mid'Rabanan, for he holds that since Bi'ah and Chalitzah are mid'Oraisa, people know [that nothing follows them];

If this were so, there would be no reason for these decrees! Above (50b), we said "Get sends away, and Chalitzah sends away. Bi'ah acquires, and Ma'amar acquires... (if we will say that Get and Ma'amar do nothing, people will say that also Chalitzah and Bi'ah do nothing).

Rejection #1: It is astounding to say so! We never found a Tana say that Get exempts a Yevamah!

Rejection #2: If so, we should have said also that nothing takes effect after Get!

Rejection #3: The wording of the Gemara does not connote that we deduce from this.

Answer #2 (Ri): Chachamim made Bi'ah [of a nine year-old] like a Ma'amar, that things take effect after them, due to the decrees above. A Ma'amar takes effect after them.

Therefore, Chachamim also decreed that there is Ma'amar after Ma'amar, even though logically, we should have said like R. Gamliel, that Ein Ma'amar Acher Ma'amar, for the first Ma'amar acquired all that Ma'amar can acquire;

Rabanan hold that if we would say that there is no Ma'amar after Ma'amar, people will come to say also that there is no Ma'amar after Bi'ah Pesulah, for Bi'ah Pesulah is no less than Ma'amar;

Therefore, they decreed that there is Ma'amar after Ma'amar and Get after Get, for Get and Ma'amar have equal status, for both of them are mid'Rabanan.

If you would say that there is no Get after Get, people will come to say also that there is no Ma'amar after Ma'amar and not Ma'amar after Bi'ah Pesulah.

If so, according to R. Nechemyah, there is no Ma'amar after Ma'amar, for he holds that there is no need to decree, for he holds that there is also no Ma'amar after Bi'ah Pesulah, for he taught regarding Bi'ah Pesulah "nothing follows it."

Question: According to R. Nechemyah, why did Chachamim enact Get and Ma'amar at all regarding a Yevamah? Since people know that Bi'ah and Chalitzah work, there is no need to decree lest they say "Get sends away, and Chalitzah sends away..."!

Answer: People think that Get and Ma'amar work mid'Oraisa, from a Kal va'Chomer in Kidushin (14a);

[They think that] even though they are excluded, they still help a little, like Ma'amar according to Beis Shamai. Therefore, if we permit to do Bi'ah after Get or Ma'amar, they will come to do Bi'ah after Chalitzah or Bi'ah.

Suggestion: Perhaps they will not err to say because Bi'ah makes a total Kinyan after a Get or Ma'amar, it (Bi'ah) should likewise make a total Kinyan after Bi'ah or Chalitzah, and they will come to have Bi'ah after [Bi'ah or Chalitzah]!

Rejection (Ri): Surely they know that Chalitzah and Bi'ah are stronger than Get and Ma'amar, for they are written explicitly, and Get and Ma'amar were excluded.