Question: The Mishnah should list Eshes Ish! She exempts her Tzarah, e.g. David divorced his wife "on condition that you not marry Ploni";

R. Eliezer and Rabanan argue about this in Gitin 82a. R. Eliezer holds that it is a Get, and she is forbidden to Ploni.

If she married Ploni's brother and he died, she exempts her Tzarah.

Suggestion: (We do not list this, because it does not occur l'Chatchilah.) Even according to R. Eliezer, mid'Rabanan she is forbidden to all men until David or Ploni dies;

We are concerned lest she marry Ploni after she is widowed or divorced [unconditionally from David], and her children [from Ploni] will be Mamzerim;

We are similarly concerned (Gitin 84a) about a Get "on condition that you not have Bi'ah with Ploni", lest she have Bi'ah with him after she is widowed or divorced;

While she is married, there is no more concern for this than for [a Get on condition that "you not have Bi'ah with] my father or your father." (We are not concerned for it, for all know the severity of the Isur.)

Rejection: Levi taught also b'Di'eved cases, like we say below. It is difficult why he not teach also this (Eshes Ish)!

Partial answer: According to the opinion that learns [the Isur of Tzaras Ervah] from Achos Ishah, this is not difficult;

This is unlike Achos Ishah, for "on condition that you not marry [Ploni]" permits her to have Zenus with him. [If the Get was] "on condition that you not have Bi'ah [with Ploni]" enables her to become Mekudeshes to him. Both of them are unlike Achos Ishah;

Implied question: If he stipulated "on condition that you not marry [Ploni] and not have Bi'ah [with him]", this is like Achos Ishah!

Answer - part 1: If it is considered a Shiyur (remnant in the Get), like "[you are permitted to all men] except for Ploni", then she is permitted to Ploni after she married his brother;

Answer - part 2: Even if it is not considered a Shiyur, it is unlike Achos Ishah, for there, at the time she fell to Yibum she was Achos Ishto;

Here, at the time she fell, she was not an Eshes Ish, until she will have Bi'ah with him (Ploni, the Yavam).

Even if you will consider her to be an Eshes Ish, since she is forbidden to have Bi'ah with him due to Eshes Ish, she is unlike [Achos Ishah];

This is because if she has Bi'ah with the Yavam, she is an Eshes Ish, and she was never Eshes Achiv.

Therefore she does not exempt her Tzarah.

Question: However, this is difficult for the opinion that learns [the Isur of Tzaros] from "v'Lakchah" - whenever there are two [Yevamos] to take, [and one of them is forbidden], this is difficult.

Answer: Even though Levi taught b'Di'eved cases, and cases that Tana'im argue about, he discusses only when the Tana of our Mishnah holds like that opinion.

Proof: Levi did not teach Chayavei Lavin, even though R. Akiva holds that they do not do Chalitzah or Yibum.

Implied question: Above, one opinion adds above Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo, and the case occurs according to R. Shimon, even though perhaps the Tana of our Mishnah does not hold like him!

Answer: This is because "to all of them I apply [the one forbidden to this...]" connotes to him that it applies to all of them.

Question: Abaye was unsure if Rabanan agree to R. Eliezer regarding Kidushin ["except for Ploni", i.e. regarding him you are not Mekudeshes to me], for Abaye said in Gitin (82b) "if R. Aba is correct";

[If they agree,] this is difficult. The Mishnah should teach Eshes Ish, for the case occurs even according to Rabanan, e.g. Reuven was Mekadesh [Leah] "except for Shimon", and Shimon was Mekadesh her Stam [and she fell to his brother Levi. She is forbidden to him, for she is Reuven's wife!]

We find also Tzaras Tzarah, e.g. Reuven was Mekadesh [Leah] except for two brothers [Shimon and Levi, and Shimon was Mekadesh her Stam, and died, and Levi did Yibum with her Tzarah, and Levi died, and his wives fell to Yehudah].

Answer: Regarding the Yavam, she is not called Eshes Ach, for she was already forbidden to him due to Eshes Ish before his brother was Mekadesh her. She is not considered Ervah b'Mekom Mitzvah.

Question: However, if Eshes Shnei Mesim is mid'Oraisa, like Gitin 82b connotes, we should list Eshes Shnei Mesim!

E.g. Reuven was Mekadesh [Leah] except for Shimon and Levi, his brothers, and Shimon was Mekadesh her Stam, and they (Reuven and Shimon) died... (she falls to Levi only from Shimon. Regarding all other brothers, she falls from both of them. If Levi did Yibum with Leah's Tzarah Chanah, and he died, just like Chanah is forbidden his brothers due to Tzaras Eshes Shnei Mesim, Chanah's Tzarah is forbidden.)

Alternatively, it is like R. Yochanan said in Kidushin (60a), that even 100 [men] can have Kidushin in one woman. (One was Mekadesh from now and after 30 days, i.e. also others can be Mekadesh within this time. Another was Mekadesh from now and after 29 days...)

Also the case of Tzaras Tzarah can occur.

Answer: However, below (31b and 18a), it connotes that Eshes Shnei Mesim is only a decree mid'Rabanan. I will explain there.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question (R. Chanina, citing R. Pinchas): The Mishnah should teach 16 women, like R. Eliezer!

Citation (cont.) Answer: There (the other 15), the Torah forbade her. Here, he forbade her.

Explanation (R. Yitzchak): There, the Torah forbade her to him, and once the brother who [later] died married her, she will have no Heter to do Yibum, for the Isur on her does not depend on any person. The Torah forbade her to him;

Regarding Eshes Ish, the Isur depends on the one who divorced her. If he wants, he can [give a Stam Get, and] permit her to the Yavam before his brother who married her will die;

Therefore, this case was not taught, because the one who divorced her could permit her.

Question: What was the Hava Amina of the previous opinions [that answered that our Tana does not list women that depend on an argument], and did not infer from the Seifa?!

In any case, since it is taught amidst the six Arayos, it cannot be taught in the Reisha!

Answer: Levi was bothered that it was not taught 16 in the Reisha, and only five in the Seifa.

Implied question: The Mishnah is R. Yehudah [who forbids Anusas Aviv to all the brothers]!

Answer: The Tana should have taught 16, if a brother happened to transgress and marry [Anusas Aviv];

Rebbi answered [Levi] that the Tana does not teach cases that are only through transgression.

Question: Even without forbidden marriage, we find this if he was Mekadesh but did not have Bi'ah with her!

Even Abaye, who says (Kidushin 78a) regarding a widow to a Kohen Gadol, that if he was Mekadesh, he is lashed, for it says Lo Yikach, here it says "Lo Yigaleh" [so he agrees that one is lashed only for Bi'ah].

Answer: Perhaps mid'Rabanan it is forbidden to be Mekadesh, lest he have Bi'ah.

And even if it is permitted to be Mekadesh her, this is considered b'Di'eved, because he may not have Bi'ah with her.

Question: How do we find this even b'Di'eved? R. Yehudah holds like R. Akiva (Sanhedrin 53a) who says that Kidushin does not take effect on Chayavei Lavin!

Answer #1: Our Gemara holds unlike that Beraisa, rather, like our Mishnah, which argues with it.

Answer #2: You are forced to say that our Mishnah does not hold like R. Yehudah regarding this, for it says below (20a) that Isur Mitzvah and Isur Kedushah do Chalitzah, but not Yibum;

If Kidushin does not take effect on Chayavei Lavin, she should not need even Chalitzah!

Question: What is the source that he does not hold like R. Akiva regarding Chayavei Lavin of She'er (relatives)?

We explain below that Isur Mitzvah and Isur Kedushah are a widow to a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee or Chalitzah to a Kohen Hedyot, and a Mamzeres or Nesinah to a Yisrael! (These are not She'er.)

Answer (Ri): You are forced to say that our Mishnah holds that Kedushin takes effect even on Chayavei Lavin of She'er.

Proof #1: It teaches (13a) six Arayos [who cannot marry any of the brothers], and not eight Arayos, i.e. his divorcee or his Chalutzah;

If they could marry his brother, they would exempt their Tzaros, like Chayavei Kerisos, since Kedushin does not take effect on them!

Conclusion: Rather, surely Kidushin takes effect on them. Therefore, we could not teach them, for even if they could marry his brother, they would not exempt their Tzaros.

Proof #2: The Mishnah (13a) lists Anusas Aviv who is his mother. It did not list Anusas Aviv Stam [which is Chayavei Lavin. He must hold that if she is not his mother, Kidushin Tofsin in her, and she needs Chalitzah, like Isur Mitzvah and Isur Kedushah].

Question: Since our Mishnah holds like R. Yehudah who forbids Anusas Aviv, we must say that he holds also that Kidushin does not take effect on Chayavei Lavin, for these depend on each other!

Strengthening of question: Below (49a), we explain R. Akiva's reason, for he holds that the child of Chayavei Lavin is a Mamzer, because he holds like R. Yehudah, who establishes "Lo Yigaleh" to discuss Anusas Aviv, and afterwards it says "Lo Yavo Mamzer".

If so, also in our Mishnah [the son of Anusas Aviv] is a Mamzer. Whenever a Mamzer results, Kidushin does not take effect [between the parents]. This is clear from several places.

Answer: Even though we establish the verse to discuss Anusas Aviv, [the child] is not a Mamzer;

This is like according to R. Yehoshua, who establishes Lo Yigaleh to discuss the father's Shomeres Yavam. (She is also Dodaso, which is Chayavei Kerisos.) Even so, he holds that Mamzer is only from Chayavei Misas Beis Din;

We expound that from "Lo Yikach", which discusses Chayavei Misas Beis Din (Eshes Av), until [but not including] Lo Yigaleh, which is Chayavei Kerisos, makes a Mamzer. Chayavei Kerisos are not [included in what makes a Mamzer];

Similarly, the Tana of our Mishnah holds that from "Lo Yikach", until Lo Yigaleh, which is Chayavei Lavin, makes a Mamzer, but Chayavei Lavin are not included.

Question (R. Moshe Kohen): According to R. Shimon, there is Tzaras Tzarah!

The case is, brothers were born after he did Chalitzah to his Yevamah and was Mekadesh her. They (the new brothers) are not forbidden to her due to "Lo Yivneh", like we say below.

Levi discusses cases that Tana'im argue about, since he taught Anusas Aviv among the six Arayos in the Seifa, which is like R. Yehudah!

Answer: He (Levi) does not teach a case that Tana'im argue about, if he himself holds that the case does not arise, like I explained above.

Levi does not hold like R. Shimon regarding Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo.

Suggestion: Perhaps it says "and then he was Mekadesh her" to teach that he is not Chayav Kares for her, but there is a Lav, because he was Mekadesh her!

Rejection: It says in Kidushin (78a) that they agree about Machazir Gerushaso, that if he was Mekadesh her but did not do Bi'ah, he is not lashed. The Torah forbids "to return to take her for a wife";

Also here, the Torah forbids in the way of building a house (through marriage).

Explanation: Rather, it mentioned that he was Mekadesh her, for if he died, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about whether or not she is Zekukah l'Yibum to his brother;

He did not say that he had Bi'ah with her, for R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish do not argue about this. All agree that there is no Kares for the Chalutzah.

Similarly, he could have said that one of the brothers had Bi'ah with her.

Explanation: Had the Torah not written Lo Yivneh, one might have thought that there is Kares even for him (the brother who did Chalitzah) with the Chalutzah;

Now, Lo Yivneh is extra to uproot [the Isur] from Kares to a Lav. However, the brothers and the Tzaros are [forbidden with Kares] like they used to be. Lo Yivneh does not apply to them.

Question: Below (44a), the Gemara connotes that the verse of Lo Yivneh is not extra. We need it to teach that one may not do Chalitzah to one Yevamah and do Yibum with another!

Citation (44a) Suggestion: If one was married to two women [and died without children], the Yavam should do Yibum with both of them!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: It says "Beis Achiv" - he builds one house, and not two.

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: He should do Chalitzah to both of them!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: It says "Beis Chalutz" - he does Chalitzah to [only] one house...

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: He should do Chalitzah to one and Yibum with the other!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: It says "Asher Lo Yivneh" - once [he did Chalitzah, for] he did not [want to] build [he may not build].

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: He should do Yibum with one and Chalitzah to the other!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: It says "Im Lo Yachpotz." This implies that if he wants, he does Yibum, and anyone who cannot do Yibum, cannot do Chalitzah.

Answer: However, some texts do not have this. Even the Seforim that have it, we can say that when we answer afterwards "if he wants, he does Yibum, and anyone who cannot do Yibum, cannot do Chalitzah", we no longer need Lo Yivneh to teach that he does not do Chalitzah to one and Yibum with another.

Since [the latter] cannot do Chalitzah, for he does not do Chalitzah to two houses (Yevamos), she cannot do Yibum, either;

Now, Lo Yivneh is extra, to uproot the Kares to a Lav.

Implied question: Below (32a), we say "if he would do Yibum and later Chalitzah, that would be fine. However, perhaps he will do Chalitzah first, and then Yibum, and transgress Lo Yivneh!

Answer: That is according to R. Yochanan, who establishes Lo Yivneh also to the Tzarah. However, Reish Lakish holds that there is Kares [for the Tzarah].

Question: In Kesuvos (75b), we have like this. The Mishnah says that if blemishes were found [in an Arusah] while she is in her father's house, the father must prove [that they arose after Kidushin. If they were found] after she entered her husband's Reshus, her husband must prove [that they arose before Kidushin].

The Gemara concludes that the Reisha is R. Yehoshua, and the Seifa is R. Gamliel.

We do not ask [like we ask here] "we should say according to R. Gamliel, she is believed, and her husband must bring a proof", and we would not need to teach two clauses]!