Question: Why did it need to write "Shenis", to exclude a third time? We do not find that He spoke with him a third time!

Answer: Perhaps since we find that they returned to their evil ways, and Nachum ha'Alkoshi prophecized about them, we could reason that also then Yonah prophecized about them.

Question: We find that He spoke with him a third time about Ninveh - "va'Yomer Hash-m El Yonah ha'Heitiv Charah Lecha Al ha'Kikayon... va'Ani Lo Achos Al Ninveh..."!

Answer: Those are not matters of Ninveh. (He was not commanded anything.)

Question: However, according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who says that Hash-m did not speak with him again, this is difficult!

Answer: This was on the same day. It is all considered one prophecy. (Rashash asks that it was not the same day! In between, he went one day's journey into the city (he is not listed with those who had Kefitzas ha'Derech), went away to see what will happen... a tree grew, and the next day the tree died! (Seemingly, it was after 40 days, when he saw that Hash-m did not destroy them! However, it is possible that they changed their ways right after Yonah's prophecy, and Hash-m told him that same day that He will not destroy them.) He asks why Tosfos did not answer like the latter Perush in the next Tosfos.)

Possibility #1 (Ri): He argues with the Midrash that Rashi brought in his Perush on Nevi'im (Melachim 2:10) "va'Yomer Hash-m El Yehu Ya'an Asher Hetivosa...", that He told him through Yonah ben Amitai.

Possibility #2: Perhaps [Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak] counts only matters that were greatly needed, such as the events with Ninveh and similar matters.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We decree lest he marry his sister born after him. There is Kares for her.

Inference: Rashi holds that if also his birth was not bi'Kedushah, he would be permitted to his maternal sister born like a Nochris, since both of them were not in Kedushah;

Then, we need not decree lest he marry his sister born after him.

Question #1: Above (22a), Ameimar said that [converted] maternal brothers can testify for each other l'Chatchilah. [The Gemara asked] why is this different than Arayos?

Explanation: Even if they converted, for they were born Nochrim, Kurvah (kinship) applies to them.

The Gemara answered that Arayos pertain to every person... This connotes that even if they were born Nochrim, maternal Kurvah applies to them, for we discuss a Stam female convert.

Question #2: The sons of the slave Yudan were conceived and born not in Kedushah. Even so, Rav Sheshes (above 97b) forbade them to marry each other's wives!

Explanation #2: Rather, the reason [we forbid] is lest they be confused with Yisrael. Even if they were born Nochrim, we decree about maternal Kurvah.

Implied question: Why did it mention that he was born in Kedushah?

Answer: This is a bigger Chidush. Even though he was born in Kedushah, and it is as if they have two [different] mothers, it is forbidden, lest they be confused with Yisrael.

Explanation #1 (Rivan): It mentioned that he was conceived not in Kedushah, for had he been conceived in Kedushah, he is like a total Yisrael, and he may marry his sister who was born a Nochris;

This is because he has no aspect of being a Nochri at all, and the concern "lest people say [that they came from a higher Kedushah to a lower Kedushah]" does not apply.

Explanation #2: It mentioned that he was conceived not in Kedushah and born in Kedushah, for then the matter is uniform. Whether his sister was born before him as a Nochris, or after him in Kedushah [she is permitted to him].

Explanation #3 (R. Chaim): It mentioned specifically that he was born in Kedushah, for then he may stay with a paternal [sister], for he never perceived himself to be a Nochri;

One cannot say about him "lest they say 'we came from a higher Kedushah to a lower Kedushah.'"

However, if he was born not in Kedushah, he must expel even a paternal [sister]. Since he never perceived that he was [once] a Nochri, he will come to say "we came from a higher Kedushah..."

Support: We heard that R. Meir, in the Yerushalmi here and Bereishis Rabah, forbids a Ben Noach to his paternal and maternal sisters;

He expounds "Al Ken Ya'azov Ish Es Aviv v'Es Imo" to refer to one who is near him from his father and (i.e. or) from his mother (i.e. his sister).

Rebuttal #1 (Ri): It seems that this Beraisa argues with the Yerushalmi and Bereishis Rabah, for it connotes that all establish the verse here for the sisters of his father and mother. This is like Rabanan there.

Rebuttal #2: Also, it seems from Sanhedrin (58a) that the reason why one must expel the father's paternal sister is lest they say "we came...", but the reason of confusion with Yisrael does not apply hear with paternal kin;

If so, it connotes that for this convert, who was born in Kedushah, the reason "lest they say..." applies, even though he never perceived himself to be a Nochri;

Poor answer: "The father's maternal sister" does not apply to the convert in the Reisha;

Rather, it refers to one who was born not in Kedushah, just like the Seifa, which says "if he married a woman and her daughter..." does not apply to the Reisha, like Rashi explained.

Rebuttal: Here it connotes that it refers to the convert in the Reisha!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We decree due to his maternal brother.

Objection: In Sanhedrin (58a), it connotes that the reason is lest they say...!

It establishes this Beraisa like R. Eliezer, who expounds "Es Aviv" to teach about his father's sister. This shows that it is forbidden to Bnei Noach.

Observation: This Beraisa is like R. Eliezer. R. Akiva argues with him, and forbids Eshes Av and permits Achos Aviv.

Pesak: Bahag rules like R. Akiva, for R. Eliezer is Shemuti (from Beis Shamai. The Halachah almost never follows him.) However, one should be stringent like R. Eliezer.

Explanation: He married them when they were Nochrim, like Rashi deduced.

Support: Also, it says "he enters (marries) one of them. If he married them when they were Yisre'elim, it should have said "he keeps one."

Assertion: The same applies to a woman and her sister, or a woman and her daughter's daughter.

Distinction: However, a woman and her son's daughter, or a woman and her paternal sister, which are paternal kin, obviously he need not expel [either of them].

Possibility #1: Perhaps l'Chatchilah he may not marry [both of them, in these latter cases].

Possibility #2: Perhaps since the Isur comes through Kidushin, even l'Chatchilah he may marry [both];

This is like we say, that one is permitted to the wife of his maternal brother, and we do not decree due to a brother born afterwards, according to Rashi.

Question (Ri): Why do we permit when [he married them when] he was a convert? Above, we decree to forbid his maternal sister, lest people come to confuse them [with Yisrael]. The same should apply here!

Suggestion: Since it is through Kidushin, we do not decree.

Rejection: His mother-in-law is through Kidushin, and [one version of] the Beraisa forbids!

Answer #1: His mother-in-law is different, for it is through his own Kidushin. Eshes Achiv is through his brother's Kidushin.

Answer #2: Eshes Achiv is not common in her brother-in-law's house. A mother and her daughter are frequently with each other. (Therefore, people know that he married his mother-in-law, so we are concerned for confusion with Yisrael.)

Answer #3: His mother-in-law is called by his name. People call her "Ploni's mother-in-law." People do not call Eshes Achiv "the wife of Ploni's brother" [so it is not known that he married his brother's wife, and there is no concern for confusion].

Question: In any case, what was the answer? There is still Kares. The verse excludes her only from death, like we say above (94b)! (We forbid maternal sisters and aunts, even though they are only Kares, without Misas Beis Din.)

Answer: Since in any case the Isur became lighter, Chachamim did not want to decree about converts after death [of his wife], since even in her lifetime, letter of the law she is permitted.

Question: According to Abaye, who says (94b) that R. Akiva does not permit a mother-in-law after death (i.e. the Isur did not become lighter), how can he answer?

Answer: Surely, Abaye holds that there is no version that permits his mother-in-law.

Explanation: This is a Beraisa. R. Chananel's text says "Tanu Rabanan."