1)

(a)Rebbi Shimon permit Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo who was born after the second brother performed Yibum - because when the current Yavam was born, he found her b'Heter.

(b)The problem with we have with this is - that regard to Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo, according to Rebbi Shimon, is - why he does not apply the same Sevara with regard to the Yavam's maternal sister, whose paternal brother married her before he was born, and who now falls to him to Yibum?

(c)We solve the problem - by differentiating between the Isur Eishes Ach (which generally has the Heter of Yibum) and that of Achoso m'Imo (which does not).

2)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses Isur Mitzvah and Isur Kedushah. Isur ...

1. ... Mitzvah - refers to Sheniyos (which we will discuss later).

2. ... Kedushah - refers to Chayavei Lavin.

(b)An Isur Ervah is Patur from Yibum and Chalitzah - whereas an Isur Mitzvah and Isur Kedushah must perform Chalitzah.

(c)The Tana also states 'Achosah she'Hi Yevimtah, Choletzes O Misyabemes'. The case is - where an Ervah (e.g. a man's daughter-in-law or his mother-in-law) and her sister fall to him for Yibum from two different husbands.

(d)This is not forbidden because of Achos Zekukah of an Ervah - because the Ervah is not considered Zekukah l'Yabem.

3)

(a)The Mishnah gives an example of Isur Kedushah as 'Almanah l'Kohen Gadol, Gerushah va'Chalutzah l'Kohen Hedyot', which is possible - only if his brother married her b'Isur.

(b)It is not necessary to say the same in the case of Almanah l'Kohen Gadol - whose brother (even if he was a Kohen Gadol) did nothing wrong, since she only became an Almanah after his death.

(c)The Tana also lists - a Mamzeres or a Nesinah to a Yisrael, and a Bas Yisrael to a Nasin or a Mamzer.

(d)We learn that Chayavei Lavin fall to Yibum in the first place, despite the fact that they cannot fulfill the Mitzvah - from Achos Ishah (above 3b.), which is the source for exempting Arayos from Yibum, and is restricted to Lavin which carry with them Kares (Rashi [though that is not the explanation given in our Sugya as we shall see]).

4)

(a)The Mishnah opens with the words 'Klal Amru bi'Yevamah, Kol she'Isurah Isur Ervah'. According to Rafram bar Papa, this comes to include Tzaras Aylonis in the Din of Isur Ervah, like Rav Asi whom we discussed in the first Perek). Others quote Rafram as saying exactly the opposite - that cases whose Isur is an Ervah (exclusively) exempt the Tzaros from Yibum, to preclude cases which are not Arayos, such as Tzaras Aylonis (not like Rav Asi).

(b)When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Achosah she'Hi Yevimtah, Choletzes O Misyabemes' - he means that when two sisters whom two brothers married fall to the Yavam, who is a close relative of one of them, then he may perform Yibum or Chalitzah with the other one. The Tana must be referring to the sister of the Isur Ervah (at the beginning of the Mishnah), and not to the sister of the Isur Mitzvah (which immediately precedes our case), because in the latter case, since mid'Oraisa, the Isur Mitzvah falls to him for Yibum, the sister would be forbidden to him because of Achos Zekukaso.

(c)Abaye ascribes the Tana's reference to ...

1. ... Sheniyos as 'Isur Mitzvah' - to the fact that it is a Mitzvah to listen to the words of the Chachamim.

2. ... Almanah l'Kohen Gadol ... as 'Isur Kedushah' - to the fact that the Torah writes with regard to Kohanim in Emor "Kedoshim Yiheyu l'Elokeihem" (this is unclear however, seeing as Isur Kedushah includes cases that are not Lavin of Kohanim).

(d)Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa switches the descriptions. According to him, the Tana refers to ...

1. ... Almanah l'Kohen Gadol ... as 'Isur Mitzvah' - because of the final Pasuk in Sefer Vayikra "Eileh ha'Mitzvos" (incorporating the Lavin of the Kohanim).

2. ... Sheniyos as 'Isur Kedushah' - because it is included in the principle 'Kadesh Atzmecha b'Mutar Lach' (sanctify yourself with what the Torah permits).

5)

(a)It is incorrect to say that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, Isur Sheniyos are referred to as 'Isur Kedushah' because anyone who fulfills the words of the Chachamim is called 'holy' - because that would imply that someone who contravenes them, is not called 'holy' (whereas in fact, he is a 'Rasha').

6)

(a)An Almanah l'Kohen Gadol incorporates both the Lav of "Almanah Lo Yikach" - and the Aseh of "v'Hu Ishah bi'Vesulehah Yikach".

(b)The problem with the presumption that we are talking about both an Almanah who was married who fell to the Kohen Gadol, and one who was only betrothed is - that in the latter case, there is no Aseh, so why should the Aseh of Yibum not override the Lo Sa'aseh?

(c)Rav Gidal Amar Rav initially resolves this from the superfluous word "v'Alsah Yevimto ha'Sha'arah" - which is superfluous, and which comes to teach us that there is a case of a Yevamah who only falls to Chalitzah and not to Yibum (i.e. Chayavei Lavin).

(d)We know that this Derashah does not incorporate Chayavei Kares - because of the Pasuk "Im Lo Yachpotz ha'Ish la'Kachas es Yevimto" (with reference to Chalitzah), implying that Chalitzah only applies to a woman with whom he could have performed Yibum had he chosen to ('Kol ha'Olah l'Yibum Olah la'Chalitzah ... '), but not to Chayavei Kares.

(e)We include Chayavei Lavin for Chalitzah only (from "Yevimto"), but preclude Chayavei Kares (from "Im Lo Yachpotz") - on the grounds that, Kidushin is effective by Chayavei Lavin (bedi'Eved), but not by Chayavei Kares.

7)

(a)In light of the fact that a Yavam who performs Yibum with a Chayavei Lavin, does not acquire her, and her Tzarah is not free to marry l'Shuk, Rava explains that, when the Beraisa says 'Isur Mitzvah v'Isur Kedushah Ba Alehah ... Nifterah Tzarasah' - it is referring specifically to Isur Mitzvah (which is only an Isur d'Rabanan); whereas 'Chalatz Lah', refers to Isur Kedushah, which is an Isur Lav.

(b)The Beraisa says that if a Petzu'a Daka, a Kerus Shafchah or a Seris Chamah (all of whom are Chayavei Lavin) - perform Yibum, they acquire the Yevamah, refuting our current theory that Chayavei Lavin are precluded from performing Yibum mid'Oraisa from "Yevimto".

8)

(a)When the Tana of the above Beraisa says (with regard to the aforementioned Chayavei Lavin) 'O Choltzin O Meyabmin' - he is referring to Chalitzah l'Chatchilah, and Yibum b'Di'eved.

(b)The Tana includes a Zaken in the list, not because he is also among the Chayavei Lavin - but to teach us that even though a Zaken can no longer father children, his Bi'ah nevertheless acquires the Yevamah.

(c)The Tana also adds that Ma'amar, a Get and Chalitzah are all effective. A Get on a Yevamah is effective - inasmuch as it prohibits any of the brothers from subsequently performing Yibum with her, but not to allow her to marry l'Shuk.

(d)If a Yavam ...

1. ... performs Yibum with a Chayavei Lavin - he is obligated to give her a Get immediately.

2. ... who is a Zaken performs Yibum with his Yevamah - he is permitted to remain with her.

9)

(a)We now see from the Beraisa that Chayavei Lavin are also subject to Yibum min ha'Torah. According to Rava's initial explanation, Chayavei Lavin may perform Yibum, and Almanah l'Kohen Gadol is different, because there is also the Aseh - of "Kedoshim Yihyu l'Elokeihem".

(b)We cannot preclude Mamzeres and Nesinah from Yibum on the grounds that they too, are included in the Aseh of "v'Hiskadishtem" - because if "v'Hiskadishtem" would be an Aseh, then it would incorporate every single Lav in the Torah, and no Aseh could ever override a Lo Sa'aseh.

10)

(a)According to Rava's next statement (that Chazal forbade certain cases of Chayavei Lavin because of a decree), they forbade ...

1. ... Almanah min ha'Erusin to perform Yibum - on account of Almanah min ha'Nisu'in.

2. ... Mamzeres u'Nesinah - b'Makom Mitzvah, on account of she'Lo b'Makom Mitzvah.

(b)Nevertheless, they did not decree ...

1. ... the wife of his paternal brother on account of his maternal brother - because the Torah connected Yibum with inheritance, so everyone will know that it does not pertain to one's maternal brother, who does not inherit.

2. ... a woman who does not have children on account of one who does - because the Torah specifically connects the Mitzvah of Yibum to not having children, so there too, nobody will make such a mistake.

3. ... the wife of a brother who lived at the same time as the Yavam, on account of one who did not - because here too, the Torah specifically connects Yibum to brothers who live together in the world.

4. ... all women who can have children on account of an Aylonis - because the latter is uncommon (and we have a principle that Chazal did not issue a decree in cases that are uncommon).

(c)According to what we just said - why did Chazal decree an Isur forbidding a Mamzeres and Nesinah l'Yisrael to make Yibum, seeing as neither of them is common?!

11)

(a)Rava finally explains that Chayavei Lavin are precluded from Yibum - mid'Rabanan, because min ha'Torah, the Mitzvah that overrides the Lav comprises only the first Bi'ah. After that, the Yavam has to give his Yevamah a Get. And Chazal decreed Bi'ah Rishonah because of Bi'ah Sheniyah (see Tosfos DH 'Atu').

(b)The Beraisa corroborates Rava's statement by saying - Im Ba'alu Kanu, b'Bi'ah Rishonah; v'Asur Lekaiman, b'Bi'ah Sheniyah'.

12)

(a)Rava retracts however from this (in spite of the Beraisa), due to a statement made by Resh Lakish (though others ascribe this Kashya to Rav Ashi) - who said that whenever it is possible to perform the Aseh in a way that avoids contravening the Lav, then one is not permitted to contravene the Lav.

(b)Here, the Yavam has the option of performing Chalitzah - in which case, he will perform the Aseh and avoid contravening the Lav.

(c)We refute Rava's Kashya however, (and Resh Lakish [see Hagahos ha'Rav Renshberg]) on the basis of the Beraisa 'Im Ba'alu Kanu' - from which we see that min ha'Torah, Chayavei Lavin are subject to Yibum (and it is only the Rabanan who forbade it through a decree, like Rava explained before he retracted).

13)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar argue over whether the Yibum performed by a Kohen Gadol on an Almanah (min ha'Erusin, [where there is only a Lav, and no Aseh]) exempts her Tzarah from Yibum. The one who says that it does, holds like Rava's final explanation; whereas the one who holds that it does not, holds like his Kashya from Resh Lakish.

(b)The Beraisa of 'Im Ba'alu, Kanu' proves that Chayavei Lavin are in fact, subject to Yibum min ha'Torah. This is not a proof against Resh Lakish (who says that whenever one can fulfill the Aseh without negating the Lav, one is obligated to do so) however - because Resh Lakish will answer that Chalitzah in face of Yibum is not a Mitzvah, and is therefore not considered an alternative.