Implied question: Why doesn't he list Nirva (a man had Bi'ah with it), Muktzeh (it was designated for idolatry) Esnan (a harlot's hire) and Mechir (it was traded for a dog)?

Answer: [These may not be offered, but] they become Kodesh [through Temurah] and make Kodesh [through Temurah]. This is clear from the Tosefta (Temurah 4).

Explanation: This is the text in our Mishnah, and also in the Beraisa of what is not Metamei Begadim, and what does not become Kodesh or make Kodesh, in Bechoros (42a) and Temurah (11a).

Explanation #1 (R. Yehudah b'Ribi Yom Tov): After the Tana taught the Halachos of the Maseches, he is wont to teach then again concisely, so they will be arranged in your hand and guarded in your mouth and heart.

Explanation #2 (Ri): All of these were taught due to the case of would not forbidden to their husbands and permitted to their Yevamim;

Even though they come [to do Yibum] due to the husband, we do not forbid them to the Yavam, even though they were forbidden to their husbands.

Observation: In other places, the Gemara is not meticulous about this;

In the fourth Perek, [the Mishnayos] mention in several places Nisu'in to two sisters [and the Gemara does not ask that the same applies to Eirusin]!

Here it is meticulous, for in the middle clause it says that he was Mekadesh.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Examples are a Mamzeres to a Yisrael and a Chalalah to a Kohen.

Objection: Also an Aseh forbids a Chalalah to a Kohen - "Kedoshim Yihyu"!

Explanation #2: Rather, it refers to the Isur of a Mamzeres, which is mentioned in several clauses.

Implied question: The Lav of a widow to a Kohen Gadol is not Shavah b'Chol. It is weaker [than other Chayavei Lavin. Perhaps Chachamim did not decree about it!]

Answer: In any case, we bring a proof. Since regarding a Lav Shavah b'Chol we decreed to forbid one Bi'ah lest he have a second Bi'ah, we decree also for a Lav she'Eino Shavah b'Chol.

Question #1: In such a case, we never say that the initial marriage causes the fall to Yibum!

We say so to be stringent, to forbid one who married [a relative of the Yavam] and divorced her (above, 30b. Her Tzarah is considered Tzaras Ervah, like she was at the beginning of her marriage.)

However, we do not find this to be lenient!

Question #2: Even after death, we say above (79b) if she fell to him and afterwards he became a Petzu'a Daka, the Isur of Petzu'a Daka takes effect!

Answer: In any case, the Gemara refuted the suggestion from the Mishnah itself.

Suggestion: The Sheni married a Sheniyah and the Shelishi married a Shelishis.

Rejection: If so, both of them are permitted to their husbands and Yevamim, for the Tana holds that Kahal Gerim Lo Ikri Kahal, like we say "[we could have taught other cases that are] permitted to both [their husbands and Yevamim], e.g. converts!

Explanation: Rather, the son of the Mitzris Sheniyah, who is a Shelishi, married a Yisraelis. She is the proper for him, for he is permitted to her.

Observation (Ri): "They are forbidden to their Yevamim" does not refer to both of them, for the wife of the Sheni, who is a Sheniyah, is permitted to her Yavam, for Kahal Gerim Lo Ikri Kahal;

Due to the Shelishi's wife, who is a Yisraelis, it says that they are forbidden to their Yevamim.

Observation: We say that if they married oppositely, they are permitted to their Yevamim and forbidden to their husbands. Also this refers only to the Mitzri Sheni's wife, who is a Yisraelis. (However, the Mitzri Shelishi's wife, who is a Mitzris Sheniyah, is permitted even to her husband.)

Implied question: Why did [Rav Papa] discuss when they married like themselves, or oppositely? (I.e. why did he say in each case that both men married, and the law (to whom they are permitted and forbidden) applies to only one of them?)

Answer: It is because he could not teach all of them regarding one man (husband). Initially, the law (permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their Yevamim) applies to the Mitzri Shelishi's wife, and afterwards (permitted to their Yevamim and forbidden to their husbands) applies to the Mitzri Sheni's wife.

Note: I do not understand this answer. Also the Mishnah cannot teach all of them regarding one man, yet it teaches only one marriage in each case, e.g. a Kohen Gadol married a widow....

Question: Why didn't he discuss a case in which the law will be true regarding both of them, e.g. a Mitzri Sheni married a Yisraelis and a Mitzris Rishonah? Now, one son is a total Yisrael, and the other is a Mitzri Sheni!

If they married properly, both are [permitted to their husbands and] forbidden to their Yevamim. If they married oppositely, they are forbidden to their husbands and permitted to their Yevamim!

Answer: The son of a Yisraelis from a Mitzri Sheni is not a Yisrael regarding Kahal. Rather, he is Kahal Gerim (he is permitted to everyone).

Note: This entire Tosfos until now is based on this, that a Mitzris Sheniyah or Shelishis is permitted to all, for Kahal Gerim Lo Ikri Kahal! Perhaps in his question, Tosfos thought that a Shelishi is different, for he is permitted to Kahal.

Question: Even if Rav Dimi is wrong, we should teach about a Yisrael who married two women, a Mitzris Rishonah and a Yisraelis, and he had sons from them. The son of the Mitzris Rishonah is a Mitzri Sheni, and the son of the Yisraelis is a Yisrael;

If they married properly, both are [permitted to their husbands and] forbidden to their Yevamim. If they married oppositely, they are forbidden to their husbands [and permitted to their Yevamim]!

Suggestion: He did not teach this because the marriage to the Mitzris was forbidden.

Rejection: He taught a Mamzer and Chalal, who married b'Isur!

Answer (Ri): He (Rav Papa) asked only an omission that is a Chidush. If Rav Dimi's law is true, the Tana should have included it in the Mishnah.

Support: This is why when we answer that he omitted Petzu'a Daka, we ask that he taught Chayavei Lavin, so this (Petzu'a Daka) is no [additional] Chidush;

We conclude that in any case it is an omission.

Implied question: Why didn't we say that he omitted a divorcee, Zonah and Nesinah?

Answer: They are not considered an omission. Since he taught Chalalah, the same applies to a divorcee and Zonah. A Nesinah is included in Mamzeres, for it is all one matter (both are forbidden to Kahal Yisrael).

Note: The Torah forbids a Mamzeres, but David decreed against the Nesinim! Perhaps "Nesinah" refers to the first generation that converts. Later generations, which are forbidden mid'Rabanan, are included in Sheniyos. Alternatively, perhaps "Mamzeres" includes a Mamzeres mid'Rabanan.

Question: What was the question against Rav Dimi? He can say that the Tana did not teach it, for he does not discuss cases that depend on an argument [of Tana'im]. One opinion holds that Kahal Gerim Ikri Kahal! (If so, only Kahal Hash-m are permitted to a Mitzri Shelishi, and they are forbidden to a Sheni, so we cannot find a case in which she is permitted to her husband and her Yavam.)

Also, R. Shimon permits the females (Mitzriyos and Edmiyos) immediately!

Answer #1: The Gemara gave a better answer. (The Tana omitted cases.)

Answer #2: Our Mishnah discusses cases of arguments. The Tana holds that Kidushin Tofsin b'Chayavei Lavin, for it says that Chayavei Lavin are forbidden to their husbands and permitted to their Yevamim;

Inference: Yibum applies. This shows that Kidushin Tofsin.

Explanation: Even if he became a Petzu'a Daka after he married her, this does not forbid her to the Yavam who is not a Petzu'a Daka.

Implied question: Why don't we say "she became forbidden to the one (her husband) to whom she was permitted. [All the more so she is permanently forbidden to the one (her Yavam) to whom she was forbidden!]

Answer: This applies only when some action happened to her to forbid her to her husband, e.g. Sotah or Machazir Gerushaso (above, 11b).

Explanation: Regarding "they are permitted to their Yevamim" we needed to teach about Lav ha'Shavah b'Chol;

Regarding the Isur to their Yevamim, since we taught a Lav she'Ein Shavah b'Chol, all the more so a Lav ha'Shavah b'Chol!

Question: It says "these"! (This implies that there are no others.)

The Gemara asks this in Kidushin (16b) regarding "these (Eved Ivrim) receive gifts [when they go free]", and regarding "these matters have no Shi'ur" (Kidushin 40a).

Answer (Ri): Here, it says "these" only to explain, for many matters were taught in the Reisha - some are permitted, some are forbidden... ("These" teaches which cases apply to which law. It does not come to exclude.) Therefore, we cannot ask this.

Answer #2: Also, whenever two matters were taught, some that have [a property], and some that lack it, [we can say that] the Tana omits cases, even if it says "these".

Example #1: In Kesuvos (29a), it teaches "for these Na'aros there is a fine (if they are raped or enticed), and it omitted Mitzri, Edomi and Pesul Kehunah.

Example #2: In Zevachim (84a), a Mishnah teaches "these Pesulim are b'Kodesh (after it was Mekudash in a Kli Shares, or if the Pesul is Kosher for Kodshim in a different setting)...", and it does not list blood that should be put above, that was put below, or [that should be put on the Mizbe'ach] outside that was put inside, or [that should be put on the Mizbe'ach] inside that was put outside, or Pesach or Chatas that was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, which a Beraisa there lists.