1)

(a)The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "v'Im Lo Yachpotz ha'Ish ... " - that the Mitzvah of Yibum takes precedence over that of Chalitzah.

2. ... "Yevamah Yavo Alehah" - 'bein b'Shogeg, bein b'Mezid, bein b'Ones bein b'Ratzon'.

3. ... "l'Hakim l'Achiv Shem" - that he acquires his Yevamah through a normal Bi'ah.

(b)The Tana of another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'Lekachah" - that he acquires her even through an abnormal Bi'ah.

2. ... "v'Yibmah" (without the 'Hey') - that only Bi'ah is Koneh, but not money or a Shtar.

3. ... the 'Hey' of "v'Yibmah" - that he acquires her even against her will.

2)

(a)Earlier, we cited Rav Yehudah's ruling, that a man cannot acquire his Yevamah when he is asleep. We cannot reconcile this with the Beraisa which says that he can, by establishing the latter when it was the Yevamah who was asleep and not the Yavam - because of a second Beraisa, which specifically compares a Yevamah to a Yavam in this regard.

(b)To reconcile it with Rav Yehudah - by establishing it by a Yavam who was Misnamnem (dozing, but not fully asleep).

(c)The precise definition of 'Misnamnem' is - dozing to the extent that he can respond when he is called. He cannot answer a question that requires a logical answer, but remembers the logic when he is reminded.

3)

(a)We also cited Rabah,, who exempts a man from paying Boshes to a woman whom he inadvertently raped after falling off a roof. The criterion Mar gives to be Chayav 'Boshes' is - that one must at least intend to hurt the person (even though he does not intend to embarrass him).

(b)Rava explains that if a Yavam performs Bi'ah with his Yevamah intending to pour his seed on a wall, he does not acquire her - because he does not have in mind to perform Bi'ah; whereas if he did so having the intention of having relations with an animal, he does - because he has in mind to perform Bi'ah.

4)

(a)Ha'ara'ah is written both by Nidah and by Achos Av v'Achos Em. The Torah writes "v'Ish Asher Yikach es Eishes Achiv, Nidah Hi" - to teach us that a Yavam too, acquires his Yevamah through Ha'ara'ah (and we try to learn all the other Arayos from Eishes Achiv).

(b)It is not possible to learn Ha'ara'ah by all the Arayos with a 'Binyan Av' (also known as a 'Mah Matzinu') from ...

1. ... Nidah - because Nidah is different, inasmuch as she (alone) renders her Bo'el Tamei.

2. ... Eishes Ach (which, as we just saw, we learn from "Nidah Hi") - because Eishes Ach is different, inasmuch as it possible to increase the scope of the Isur (by his brother betrothing more women).

3. ... Achos Av v'Achos Em - because they are different, inasmuch as they come naturally.

(c)We would be able to learn from ...

1. ... Eishes Ach - all the Arayos that are forbidden through Kidushin .

2. ... Achos Av v'Achos Em - those relations that come naturally, such as a mother, sisters and daughters.

(d)We cannot learn Ha'ara'ah by all the Arayos from a combination of Eishes Ach and Achos Av v'Achos Eim, because they are all Asur because of 'She'er' (they are relations) - and we would not be able to learn Eishes Ish from them.

5)

(a)So we try to learn Ha'ara'ah from a combination of Nidah and Eishes Ach. We refute the suggestion that we cannot learn Eishes Ish from them, due to the fact that they have no Heter in the lifetime of those who cause the Isur - because that Nidah and Eishes Ach do not have a Heter after their death either, since a Nidah remains Asur even after her husband's death (until the end of her period), and Eishes Ach remains Asur in the event that they had children.

(b)The basic difference between Nidah and Eishes Ach on the one hand, and Eishes Ish on the other is - that by the former, the source that permits her (seven days by a Nidah, and the fact that the deceased husband of the Yevamah left no children) is not the same as the one that originally forbade her, whereas by Eishes Ish, it is (the dissolving of the Kidushin, which caused the original prohibition).

(c)We ultimately learn Ha'ara'ah by all the Arayos from Nidah with Hekesha d'Rebbi Yonah (according to others, Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua) - the Pasuk in Acharei Mos ("Ki Kol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'To'evos ha'Eileh v'Nichresu ha'Nefashos ha'Osos ... ") which compares all the Arayos to Nidah.

6)

(a)To explain why the Torah then writes "Nidah Hi" by Eishes Ach, we cite a statement by Rav Huna which begins 'Remez li'Yevamah min ha'Torah Minayin?' The problem with ...

1. ... this - is that we already have a specific Pasuk; so why do we need a hint?

2. ... the emended statement 'Remez li'Yevamah she'Asurah b'Chayei Ba'alah' (i.e. after he has given her a Get) is - that this too we can infer from the fact the Torah permits her after her husband's death.

(b)We solve the latter problem by establishing the possibility of Eishes Ach being ...

1. ... permitted - as opposed to the Mitzvah of Yibum (but not forbidden).

2. ... forbidden, yet we still need the Derashah of "Nidah" by Eishes Ach - to transform the prohibition of an Aseh (since 'Lav ha'Ba mi'Chelal Aseh, Aseh') into a Lav.

(c)We learn the Isur of Eishes Ach in the brother's life-time from "Nidah" - inasmuch as, like it is like a Nidah, who is permitted during the time that she is permitted, but is subject to Kares when she is not.

(d)Zachar and Behemah are not included in the Hekesh of Rebbi Yonah - because they are not included in "v'es Mekorah He'erah" (the expression used by Ha'ara'ah of a Nidah), seeing as they do not possess a Mekor.

7)

(a)We reject the She'eilah that Ravina asked Rava 'ha'Me'areh b'Zachar Mahu' - on the grounds that we know this from the Pasuk "Mishkavei Ishah" written by Zachar (comparing Zachar to Nekevah in this regard).

(b)Ravina really asked Rava - for the source of Ha'ara'ah by bestiality.

8)

(a)Rava learned it from the fact that the Torah (in Acharei Mos) writes Ha'ara'ah by Achos Av v'Achos Em - which in itself, is not necessary, since we already know it from 'Hekeshah d'Rav Yonah'. Consequently, we learn it 'Im Eino Inyan'.

(b)We object at having to learn Behemah from Achos Av v'Achos Em - because whereas Behemah is included among the Chayavei Misos Beis Din (Sekilah), Achos Av v'Achos Em are only Chayavei Kares.

(c)It that case we contend, it would have been more appropriate to have inserted Ha'ara'ah - by Imo or Chamoso, or Bito which are also Chayavei Misos Beis Din.

(d)The Torah nevertheless picked Achos Av v'Achos Em to teach us Behemah - because the Pasuk already needs to be written for a different Derashah (as we shall now see).

9)

(a)The Beraisa is not sure whether to learn the Isur of Achos Av from Achoso or from Dodaso - (i.e. his uncle's wife).

(b)The Tana is referring to the fact - that whereas Achoso is forbidden irrespective of whether she is a paternal or a maternal sister, Dodaso is confined to the wife of a paternal aunt.

(c)We cannot learn Achos Av and Achos Em in this regard from ...

1. ... Dodaso (rather than Achoso) - because she comes about through Kidushin, unlike Achos Av and Achos Em, who (like Achoso), comes naturally.

2. ... Achoso (rather than Dodaso) - because she is his blood-relation (as opposed to Dodaso, who, like Achos Av and Achos Em, are blood-relations of his father).

(d)We learn the fact that there is no distinction drawn between his father's or mother's paternal sister or maternal one - from the (superfluous) Pasuk - "Ervas Achos Avicha Lo Segaleh ... Ervas Achos Imcha Lo Segaleh".

(e)The Torah needs to tell us this, both by Achos Av and by Achos E. It could not just have written it by ...

1. ... Achos Av, explains Rebbi Avahu - because she is considered a full relative (because 'Mishpachas Av Keruyah Mishpachah'); whereas Achos Em is not.

2. ... Achos Em - because we know for certain that she is related to him, whereas by Achos Av, this is not the case (since we can never be quite sure that the man whom he takes to be his father is really his father).

10)

(a)Rava learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' 'Dodo' ("Ervas Dodo Gilah") 'Dodo' ("O Dodo O ben Dodo Yig'alenah") - that one is only Chayav for incest with the wife of his father's paternal brother's wife.

(b)We know that, in the latter Pasuk, it is only his paternal uncle who is obligated to redeem him - because the Pasuk writes "mi'Mishpachto Yig'alenu", and we have a principle 'Mishpachas Av Keruyah Mishpachah, Mishpachas Em Einah Keruyah Mishpachah'.

11)

(a)We query what we just learned from the Mishnah in ha'Ishah Rabah, which discusses a man who is told that his wife died, and who then married her paternal sister; she too, died, and he married her maternal sister; and when she died, he married her paternal sister, and finally, her maternal sister. If it is then discovered that his wife is still alive - he is permitted to retain the first, third and fifth women that he married, but forbidden to remain with the second and the fourth ...

(b)... because whereas the first group of women are unrelated, the second and the fourth are - the sister of the first wife and the sister of the third one, respectively.

(c)When the Tana says 'u'Potros Tzaroseihen' - he means that, if he dies, and the brothers perform Chalitzah with one of the three women, the other two are permitted to marry l'Shuk.

(d)If he made Bi'ah with the second woman after the death of the first - he is permitted to the second and the fourth ones, and forbidden to the other three.