1)

(a)When the Reisha of the Beraisa (whose Seifa we just discussed) says that the Minchah was first permitted and then became forbidden, it means - that initially, the contents of the Minchah were permitted to eat, and then became forbidden after the sanctification of the Minchah.

(b)Rava (who learns the Seifa of the Beraisa like the Rabanan of Aba Shaul (that it is a Mitzvah to perform Yibum, as opposed to Chalitzah) explains the conclusion of the Reisha ('Talmud Lomar "Matzos Te'achel b'Makom Kadosh", Mitzvah') - to mean that, once the Kometz is burned and the Minchah becomes permitted once again, it is not like before, when any Kohen was permitted to eat it, because now it became a Mitzvah for the Kohen who brings it to eat it (see Tosfos DH 'Ratzah').

(c)We reject the suggestion of explaining the initial suggestion as 'Ratzah Ochlah, Ratzah Einah Ochlah' - on the basis of the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "v'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem", which teaches us that it is a Mitzvah for the Kohanim to eat Kodshim, so how could the Tana suggest 'Ratzah Eino Ochlah'.

(d)The problem we have in explaining the Reisha according to Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi (who learns that 'Talmud Lomar, Mitzvah' in the Seifa [regarding Yibum], means 'l'Mitzvah', like Aba Shaul) - is in finding two ways of eating the Minchah (like Lishmah and she'Lo Lishmah in the Seifa), because, unlike in the Seifa, there is no sin in eating the Minchah for ulterior motives.

2)

(a)We cannot explain the Reisha according to Aba Shaul, to mean ...

1. ... 'Ratzah l'Te'avon Ochlah, Ratzah, Achilah Gasah, Ochlah' - because we have already learned that Achilah Gasah (eating on a full stomach) is not called Achilah, in which case, we already know that one is not Yotzei, from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "v'Achlu Aharon u'Vanav".

2. ... 'Ratzah Chametz Ochlah, Ratzah, Matzah Ochlah' - because we also know already that the Minchah may not be eaten as Chametz (even the part that is eaten by the Kohanim, from the Pasuk in Tzav "Lo Se'afeh Chametz").

(b)We know that ...

1. ... even the portion of the Minchah that is eaten by the Kohanim must be eaten as Matzah, and not as Chametz - because the Torah writes "Lo Se'afeh Chametz, Chelkam".

2. ... someone who eats on a full stomach on Yom Kippur is Patur - because the Mishnah in Yoma states that someone who eats on a full stomach on Yom Kippur is Patur from "Lo Se'uneh" (seeing as eating on a full stomach is included in Inuy - because it is harmful).

(c)We initially reject the suggestion that the Tana means to say 'Ratzah Matzah Ochlah, Ratzah Chalut Ochlah' - because if Chalut (cooked in boiling water) is Matzah, then why should he not be Yotzei? Whereas if it is not, then we have just explained why one is not Yotzei.

3)

(a)We finally conclude that Chalut is considered Matzah, and the Beraisa nevertheless precludes Chalut from the Mitzvah of eating the Minchah - from the fact that Torah repeats the obligation to eat it Matzah.

(b)Chalut is considered Matzah - regarding being Yotzei one's obligation of eating Matzah on Seder-night, provided one subsequently bakes it in the oven ...

(c)... since it is still considered Lechem Oni.

4)

(a)Our Mishnah teaches us that the brother who performs Chalitzah receives an equal portion to his brothers in their deceased brother's inheritance. We might otherwise have thought - that he is fined for performing Chalitzah and not Yibum.

(b)The Tana cannot be coming to preclude from the suggestion that the Choletz might be the sole heir, as if he had performed Yibum - because then, the Tana should have said that 'he is only' (Eino Ela) like one of the brothers', rather than (Harei Hu k'Echad min ha'Achim') 'he is like one of the brothers'.

(c)If, after performing Yibum, the brother hands the Yevamah a Get -he nevertheless inherits his deceased brother's property.

(d)The Tana Kama maintains that the brother who performs Yibum is the sole heir even if their father is still alive. But according to Rebbi Yehudah - a father always precedes his offspring.

5)

(a)The principle that governs the Din in our Mishnah that, if the father is still alive, he inherits, is - that the father precedes his offspring (except, according to the Tana Kama, when one of the brothers performed Yibum).

(b)We learn from the Pasuk "Yakum al-shem Achiv" - that the brother who performs Yibum inherits his deceased brother (as we learned in the second Perek).

(c)Many Amora'im rule like Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah (that the father even takes precedence over the brother who performed Yibum). He learns this from "v'Hayah ha'Bechor Asher Teiled" - comparing the Yavam to a Bechor, who does not receive any inheritance during his father's life-time; so neither does he.

(d)The Pasuk cannot also be telling us that, like a Bechor, the brother who performed Yibum takes a double portion after his father's death - because it says "Yakum al-shem Achiv" and not "Aviv" (and whatever he would receive only after his father's death, would be his father's inheritance, and not his brother's).

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah, we cannot then learn from the Pasuk "(v'Hayah ha'Bechor") that, where there is a father, and the Yavam does not inherit his brother, he does not perform Yibum either - because the Torah did not connect Yibum with inheritance (to such an extent - see Tosfos Yeshanim).

(b)When Rebbi Chanina Kara quoted to Rebbi Yanai that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yehudah - he told him to take his quotations outside, because the Halachah is not like him.

(c)And when the Beraisa expert quoted a Beraisa to Rav Nachman 'Ein Halachah k'Rebbi Yehudah' - he commented that surely, it is obvious that the Halachah is like the majority

(d)When he offered to remove it from his Beraisos however - the former told him that this was not necessary, because in fact, he had initially cited the Beraisa as saying 'Halachah k'Rebbi Yehudah' (a ruling which certainly needed to be stated - justifying the Beraisa). However, not liking the fact that the Beraisa ruled like a minority, he changed the text to 'Ein Halachah k'Rebbi Yehudah' (and rightly so).

7)

(a)Any relation of one's wife who is forbidden to him, is also forbidden if she is the relation of the Chalutzah - mid'Rabanan (and the same applies to the Chalutzah vis-a-vis the relatives of the Chalutz).

(b)This prohibition is - mid'Rabanan.

8)

(a)Besides his wife's sister, our Mishnah also lists - his mother, mother's mother and father's mother, his daughter, daughter's daughter and son's daughter.

(b)The (maternal) brothers of the Chalutz are not included in the prohibition.

(c)The Tana lists Aviv and Avi Aviv, Bno and Ben Bno, Achiv and ben Achiv who are forbidden to the Chalutzah. Aviv is forbidden on account of Kalaso, and Bno on account of Eishes Av. They decreed on ...

1. ... Avi Aviv - on account of Kalas Bno.

2. ... Ben Achiv - on account of Eishes Achi Aviv.

(d)The difference between Avi Aviv and Ben Bno and the other four is - that whereas, in the case of a real wife, the latter would be d'Oraisa, the former would only be d'Rabanan.

9)

(a)A man is permitted to marry 'Kerovas Tzaras Chalutzaso - but not 'Tzaras Kerovas Chalutzaso.

(b)We ask whether Chazal decreed the Sheniyos by Chalutzah or not. They might not have done so - seeing as Chalutzah herself is only mid'Rabanan (in which case it is like a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah).

(c)We cannot resolve the She'eilah from the fact that the Tana included Imah and Em Imah, but not Em Em Imah, that they did not decree the Shniyos - because he may have deliberately omitted Eim Eim Imah, so that when he later concludes 've'ha'Achin Mutarin', nobody will think that he is referring exclusively, to Em Em Imah.

(d)It would have been possible, we conclude, both to mention Em Em Imah and to state that the brothers are permitted, and still to avoid the problem - by simply adding 'ha'Achin Mutarin b'Chulan' ...

(e)... and we remain with a Kashya as to why the Mishnah does not do so.

10)

(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from the fact that the Tana mentions ...

1. ... Avi Aviv, (Kalas Bno) which is a Sheniyah (as we explained). We refute this proof however - because he could just as well be forbidden because she is the Kalas Bno of her first husband.

2. ... Ben Bno, to whom she is Eishes Avi Aviv. We reject the suggestion that she is Asur because she is a Sheniyah of her deceased husband - because that would make her Eishes Achi Avi Aviv, and Ameimar holds that Eishes Achi Avi Aviv is not a Sheniyah at all.

(b)To avoid proving that they did decree Sheniyos by Chalutzah, Ameimar will then have to explain 'ben Bno' - to mean ben Bno of the father of the deceased (in other words, Bno and ben Bno refer to Aviv that preceded them).

(c)This is not the same as 'Achiv u'ben Achiv' which is already mentioned in the Mishnah - because, whereas 'Bno u'ben Bno refer to his paternal brother and nephew, 'Achiv u'ben Achiv' refers to maternal ones.

11)

(a)Rebbi Chiya quotes a Beraisa which lists four relations min ha'Torah by Chalutzah, and four mid'Rabanan. The four min ha'Torah are Aviv, u'Bno, Achiv u'ben Achiv. The four relations mid'Rabanan are - Avi Aviv, Avi Imo, ben Bno u'ben Bito.

(b)The Lav that pertains to 'Achiv' is - "Lo Yivneh" ('Keivan she'Lo Banah, Shuv Lo Yivneh').

(c)We already explained above that Avi Aviv could refer, not to the Chalutz, but to the first husband (because of Eishes Achi Aviv). In similar vein, to avoid proving that they decreed Sheniyos by Chalutzah, we will explain 'Avi Imo' to mean - 'Kalas Bito' (assuming that her deceased husband and the Yavam had the same mother).

(d)Ameimar cannot establish ben Bno in Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa by the son's son of the Chalutzah's husband (because of Eishes Achi Avi Aviv) - because in his opinion, Eishes Achi Avi Aviv is not a Sheniyah.

(e)He therefore establishes it - by the Yevamah's son's son (who is forbidden because of Eishes Avi Aviv [who is a Sheniyah]), providing us with conclusive proof that, according to Ameimar at least, Chazal did decree Sheniyos by Chalutzah.

12)

(a)The relationship between the Chalutzah and ben Bito of ...

1. ... the Choletz is - that of Eishes Avi Imo.

2. ... her first husband is - Eishes Achi Avi Imo.

(b)We cannot explain that 'ben Bito' is forbidden because she is Eishes Achi Avi Imo of her first husband - because Eishes Achi Avi Imo is not a Sheniyah (in which case it must be because she is Eishes Avi Imo of the Chalutz).

(c)This finally proves - that Chazal did decree Sheniyos by Chalutzah!

13)

(a)Rav Tuvi bar Kisna Amar Shmuel says that the baby from Tzaras Chalutzaso is a Mamzer - because, in his opinion, the Lav of 'Lo Yivneh' only covers the Chalutzah, but the Tzarah remains with the Isur Kares of Eishes Ach (and the child born from an Isur Kares is a Mamzer.

(b)Rav Yosef tries to prove Shmuel's Din from our Mishnah, which permits Kerovas Tzaras Chalutzaso - because if not for the fact that the Tzarah remains an Ervah, why should her relation be permitted to the Chalutz?!

14)

(a)This proof however, leaves us with a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - who learned in the first Perek that neither the Chalutz nor his brothers are Chayav Kares on either the Chalutzah or her Tzarah.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan counters this by pointing out that we are dealing with Tzaras Chalutzaso - and seeing as Chalutzaso herself is only an Isur d'Rabanan, the reason that Kerovas Tzaras Chalutzaso is permitted cannot possibly be because Tzaras Chalutzaso is an Ervah (but because of a decree).

(c)And the reason that Chazal decreed on Tzaras Achos Chalutzaso, and not on Achos Tzaras Chalutzaso - is because whereas, in the former case, Achos Chalutzaso would normally have accompanied her sister to Beis-Din for the Chalitzah ceremony, causing people to become confused, to think that she is the Chalutzah (and consider her Tzarah to be a Tzaras Ervah), in the latter case, by Achos Tzaras Chalutzaso, where the Tzarah does not accompany the Yevamah to the Beis-Din, there is nothing to worry about, because, even if the Chalutz marries the Tzarah's sister, nobody will suspect them of sinning.