Implied question: We expound [differently] below (23a) "Moledes Bayis..." - whether they tell your father to keep [her mother] or expel [her]!

Answer: The verse does not leave is simple meaning. If she is the daughter of both [of your parents], we learn from a Kal va'Chomer;

However, Ishah u'Vitah properly includes [his own] daughter who is [also] Bas Ishto, like we find in Sanhedrin (53a) that one's mother who is Eshes Aviv is included in Eshes Aviv;

The Ri's opinion: Regarding Bas Ishto, if [Yakov and Leah] had Chupah but not Bi'ah, it seems that he (Yakov) is liable for Leah's daughter.

Implied question: It says "Ervas Ishah u'Vitah Lo Segaleh", which connotes Bi'ah [with both of them]!

Answer: It is reasonable that it does not depend on Bi'ah, for one is not liable for the daughter of a woman he raped. This shows that it depends on Kidushin;

It is unreasonable to say that it depends on both (Kidushin and Bi'ah).

Question: Why isn't one liable for the daughter of a woman he raped?

Answer #1: Rashi explained that it says Ishah u'Vitah, which connotes marriage, since it did not write "mother and daughter."

Answer #2: Below (97a), the Gemara gives a different reason. Regarding Arayos it says "She'er" (kin). Through Nisu'in there is She'er, but not through rape.

Alternate text: Some change the text to say "Rav", for Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi was Rav's Rebbi, like it says in Chulin (110a);

Citation (110a): Is there a Tana who taught to Rav [the laws of] udder? They pointed to Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi.

Citation (Shabbos 40b - Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi): Once, I followed after Rebbi into the bathhouse...

Rava was not in he said (Rav's) days, for the day that Rav Yehudah died Rava was born (Kidushin 72b)!

Answer (R. Tam): We must say that the text says Rava, for he [and not Rav] normally argues with Abaye;

Citation (Sanhedrin 76a) Question: What is the source [to obligate burning] for his daughter through rape?

Citation (cont.) Answer #1 (Abaye): The Torah gives this punishment for his granddaughter, so all the more so for his daughter!

Citation (cont.) Answer #2 (Rava): Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi said...

Conclusion: We must say that there were two Chachamim named Yitzchak bar Avdimi. (One was the Rebbi of Rav, and the other was in the days of Rava.)

Assertion: The same applies to the wife of his maternal brother. The Gemara mentioned one of them. Both of them are not his own kin, rather, through Kidushin;

Kalaso, i.e. his son's wife, is closer [to him] than they are.

Suggestion: Only regarding Eishes Achiv who did not live at the same time [as his brother] we say that Kalaso is closer, for he did not live at the same time;

However, Kalaso is not closer than the wife of his maternal brother, for it is distanced a generation, like we find regarding testimony (Bava Basra 128a);

Even the opinion that is Machshir a grandfather to testify (for he is distanced two generations), disqualifies a nephew.

Rejection: You must say that regarding Arayos, his son's wife is closer than Eshes Ach, for a son is the leg (continuation) of his father;

We consider one's daughter and granddaughter to be his own relatives more than his sister.

Explanation: This (Poteres) connotes that if he wants, he may do Yibum. He should have taught that they are forbidden to be Yibum!

Implied question: We learn from the Seifa that in the Reisha she does not need Chalitzah, for the Seifa says "anyone who could have done Mi'un... [but did not, needs Chalitzah." Why must the Reisha teach this explicitly?]

Answer: In any case, [the Tana] prefers to teach it in the Reisha itself.

Explanation: Had the Tana taught Asuros, this would have connoted that all the more so, not b'Mekom Mitzvah they are forbidden, since the Isur of a Tzarah is due to Ervah;

Therefore, he taught Potros. It follows that it is forbidden b'Mekom Mitzvah, for automatically [without the Mitzvah], there is the Isur of Eshes Ach.

Explanation: Now that both of them are taught, and it teaches Chalitzah first, this implies that Chalitzah has precedence.

Had it taught only Chalitzah, this would not imply anything [about which has precedence].

Question: We should exclude both of them from the Minyan in the Reisha!

Since the Mishnah taught 15 women, we cannot say that it omitted some. It excludes all others, like it says in Kidushin (16b).

Citation (16b) Suggestion: Perhaps the Tana omitted some cases.

Citation (cont.) Rejection: It says "four"!

Answer: Here, the Tana could not have taught them in the Mishnah, like we conclude, since the case of Tzaras Tzarah does not apply;

Therefore, we exclude them only due to the redundancy in our Mishnah.

Reference: Below, I will explain the reasons of Rav Asi and those who disagree with him, with Hash-m's help.

Question: We find the case of Tzaras Tzarah regarding a Bo'el (Reuven had Bi'ah with a married woman, Shlumis), if she married his brother (Shimon), and he (Shimon) has another wife (Dinah), and he (Shimon) died without children;

She (Shlumis) exempts her Tzarah (Dinah) from the Bo'el (Reuven), for Tum'ah is written also regarding the Bo'el, just like regarding the husband;

If she (Dinah) married his second brother (Levi), and he has another wife (Sarah), and he died, just like she (Dinah) is exempt, so her Tzarah (Sarah) is exempt.

Answer #1: Since regarding the husband, we do not find the case of Tzaras Tzarah, we should not be more stringent about Tum'ah regarding the Bo'el than Tum'ah regarding the husband.

Answer #2 (Ri): Only Tum'ah regarding the husband [exempts the Tzarah, for it] is like Arayos, for it is written as a Lav - "Lo Yuchal Ba'alah...";

Regarding the Bo'el no Lav is written, rather, "v'Nisterah v'Hi Nitme'ah."

Implied question: Below (11b), the Gemara asks "if she had Bi'ah, Tum'ah is written regarding her - v'Nisterah v'Hi Nitme'ah!

Inference: From this verse alone we expound that Tum'ah is written regarding her, like Arayos!

Answer: We can say that based on what we answer [there, that "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah"] forbids her with a Lav, v'Nisterah v'Hi Nitme'ah did not suffice.

Question: Why may we learn from Achos Ishah? This is an Isur that he can increase! (He can marry many women, and become forbidden to their sisters.) The Gemara asks this below (54a).

Answer: We rely on the Hekesh of R. Yonah [which equates all of the Arayos] at the end of our Sugya (8a).

Observation: We could have suggested "perhaps I include even not b'Mekom Mitzvah'!

Question (Ri): What is the source to say so? Perhaps even without Aleha, Achos Ishah would not do Yibum, for an Aseh is not Docheh a Lav with Kares!

We need Aleha to forbid, to teach that normally, it is Docheh in such a case!

The Gemara says like this below. 'This is because the Torah wrote "Es Shabsosai Tishmoru." If not, it would override!'

Suggestion: We ask against "I would understand" in the Beraisa, for the words connote that if not for Aleha, one would think that it overrides.

Rejection: If so, what is Rava's answer at the end "Ervah itself does not need a verse, for an Aseh is not Docheh a Lav with Kares?"

Rather, you must say that "I would understand" is not precise. It means 'if you will say that it is Docheh, it says "Aleha" [to teach that it is not].' However, this is not the primary reason [for "Aleha"].

Answer (Ri): If normally, an Aseh is not Docheh a Lav with Kares, the Tana should not have expounded Aleha to forbid, and we do not need it for the law itself, rather, to teach that normally it is Docheh;

Rather, he should have expounded it for Heter. It says here Aleha, and also there. Just like there it refers to Achos Ishah, also here it refers to Achos Ishah, and the Torah says Yevamah Yavo Aleha.

It is more reasonable to expound this way, and establish the verse [to teach a Chidush] for the law itself.

Rather, [since the Tana did not expound this way], surely the Tana holds that Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kares. He does not need the verse to permit. Therefore, he expounds it for the law itself, to forbid.

Implied question: Rav Ashi asks below (8b) "what is the source that Aleha forbids? Perhaps it permits!" (According to Tosfos, he should realize that because the Tana holds that normally Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kares, he needs the verse only to forbid!)

Answer: He asks according to Rava (8a), who concluded that an Aseh is not Docheh a Lav with Kares, like the Rivam explained;

However, as long as we thought that he (the Tana) holds that it is Docheh, he (Rav Ashi) could not have asked this.

Implied question: (Rava (8a) says that we do not need Aleha to forbid the Ervah, for an Aseh does not override a Lav with Kares. It is needed to forbid the Tzarah.) Rava needed to say only "you cannot say that it is to permit, for if so, we could not fulfill "Legalos Ervasah (singular)", [i.e. of the Ervah and her Tzarah, exactly] one is forbidden, like we answer Rav Ashi's question (8b) below.

The Gemara's primary inference is because the Tana did not expound to permit! (It would suffice to teach why we cannot expound to permit.)

Answer: The Makshan thought that it is obvious that Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kares. Rava [elaborated, and] answered him that this is not true.

Question: Why don't we learn that it overrides, from the Aseh of Yibum, which overrides the Lav of Kares of Eshes Ach?

Suggestion: This is what we say below (7b) that we need it (Aleha), for we would have thought to learn Achos Ishah from a Mah Matzinu (precedent) from Eshes Ach.

Rejection #1: If so, what was the Gemara's challenge to this "these are different. Here (Eshes Ach), there is only one Isur. There (Achos Ishto), there are two!"?

i. We distinguish in any place [between one Isur and two]. We learn from Sha'atnez in Tzitzis. [Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh permits] even two Isurim!

Rejection #2: Below, when we want to learn from Pesach, Tamid and Bris Milah, we do not ask this.

Rejection #3: The Gemara abandoned Eshes Ach, which it was discussing, and concludes it only at the end!

Rejection #4: In any case, at least we should learn from Eshes Ach [that an Aseh is Docheh] one Isur!

Answer: Rather, you must say that below, we do not try to learn from Eshes Achiv to everywhere;

Rather, we try to learn from it only to Achos Ishah, for the reason we conclude, since (the Yevamah) was permitted, (she) is [totally] permitted.