Explanation: If she would go out (l'Shuk, i.e. be permitted to marry a stranger) without Chalitzah, because she [and her sister] became Tzaros to each other, for this reason people will come to send out [without Chalitzah] also Isur Mitzvah, and permit in general Isur Mitzvah l'Shuk.

We ask that we did not decree that Ervah do Chalitzah. She goes out without Chalitzah, and we are not concerned lest people think that it is due to her sister, and come to send out the other (her sister) without Chalitzah.

Rashi's opinion: In the Gemara (29b), regarding "a regular Arusah [is not considered his wife regarding Aninus, Tum'ah and inheritance]. Need we teach about when he gave [to his Yevamah] a Ma'amar?!", Rashi explained that Ma'amar Yevamin is mid'Rabanan, even according to Beis Shamai;

The Torah says "Yevamah Yavo Aleha." (Only Bi'ah acquires.)

Objection #1 (Rivam): If so, why does the other leave due to Achos Ishah through this Ma'amar?!

Answer: We could say that she leaves due to Achos Ishah, i.e. after the Yavam has Bi'ah with Ba'alas ha'Ma'amar.

Objection #2 - Citation (18a): It taught Ma'amar (in the Mishnah of Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo) to teach unlike Beis Shamai.

Inference: According to Beis Shamai, the second (i.e. other wife of the Yavam who gave a Ma'amar) goes out due to Tzaras Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo."

Question #3: We say below (30a) regarding Achos Ishah "this shows that Beis Shamai hold that Ma'amar acquires mid'Oraisa." The entire Sugya proves like this.

Implied question: Why does the Gemara say "a regular Arusah... need we teach about a Ma'amar?!" If also Ma'amar is mid'Oraisa [why is this obvious]?

Answer: In any case, there was no need to teach it, for we learn from regular Kidushin that it acquires mid'Oraisa;

Therefore, it is no greater than Kidushin. Dayo (it suffices) to learn from a Kal va'Chomer to make the matter learned like the source!

Explanation (Ri): In all the cases in Perek 12 (112b, 114b) when the Mishnah says "he sends out his wife with a Get, and Eshes Achiv with Chalitzah", it does not say "woe to him", like here;

This is because "woe to him" connotes pain. I.e. it is proper that he be pained that he lost his wife without his fault;

Here, and the argument the Gemara brings of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua regarding a minor and an adult (sisters), he did nothing wrong. Therefore, it says "woe to him";

However, there he was negligent, for he entered himself into a Safek of [marriage to] deaf women. He should not have married a Chereshes.

Similarly, below (41a), when a Yavam was Mekadesh the sister of his Yevamah (he did improperly).

Support: This is why the Gemara says that this excludes the case of R. Yehoshua, in which it is proper to say "woe to him", and it did not say to exclude all these [other] cases.

Explanation: He says that she waits until she matures and he does Bi'ah, and the other leaves due to Achos Ishah.

Implied question: Kidushin of an [orphaned] minor is only mid'Rabanan! (We should force him to divorce her, just like he must divorce Ba'alas Ma'amar when her sister falls to him to Yibum.)

Answer: Even so, we are more lenient about her [he keeps her] than about Ba'alas Ma'amar, for she entered [his house, i.e. did Nisu'in] before the time of the older [sister, i.e. before she fell. It seems that Maharshal deletes the word "Gedolah" from the text, and explains like this. The text in the Venice edition of the Gemara says "Zman Gadol." I do not understand this. Why do we assume that Nisu'in was long before she fell? What is considered a long time?]

Implied question: Above (18a), we ask why R. Meir forbids to be Mevatel Mitzvas Yevamin (when two sisters fall to two brothers), and R. Gamliel permits (Bi'ah after maturity, which is) Mevatel Mitzvas Yevamin;

Why is this difficult? Here (R. Gamliel's case), she entered beforehand!

Answer: In any case we ask that R. Meir is concerned for a Safek of Bitul Mitzvas Yevamin, and R. Gamliel is not concerned even for Vadai Bitul.

Explanation: He says that we train the minor to do Mi'un, and then he may do Yibum with the adult.

Question: Why is this permitted? At the time of Nefilah, she looks like Achos Ishah!

We say so above (12a) regarding the Tzarah of Bito Mema'enes. At the time she falls, she looks like Tzaras Bito, [and similarly we say] At the time she falls, she looks like Tzaras Bito, [and similarly regarding] Tzaras Kalaso!

Answer: These are different. There, when the husband died, it does not look so much that she uproots the previous marriage like here, when her husband is alive.

Observation: Even though it totally acquires, still, we say above and below (30a) regarding Achos Ishah that according to Beis Shamai, she exempts her Tzarah through a Ma'amar.

Question: Above, how can R. Shimon say "if the second brother's Ma'amar is a Ma'amar (if it acquires, after he dies, the surviving brother may do Yibum, for) he has Bi'ah with the second brother's wife?

Even if it is a Ma'amar, he has Bi'ah with both brothers' wives, for even according to Beis Shamai, who say that Ma'amar acquires, it does not totally acquire. It acquires and leaves over (Zikah)!

Suggestion: R. Shimon holds that if a Ma'amar acquires, it acquires totally, more than according to Beis Shamai.

Rejection: If so, what is R. Elazar's source that according to Beis Shamai it does not acquire totally, like it does according to R. Shimon?!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): In our entire Sugya, "Tzarah" refers to her sister who falls with her.

Question #1: According to Rav Ashi, who says that [Ma'amar] dispels and leaves over, she and her Tzarah require Chalitzah.

The Mishnah says that she leaves due to Achos Ishah. This connotes that she goes out without Chalitzah!

Question #2: If she needs Chalitzah, how can he keep this one (Ba'alas Ma'amar)?

Answer: Rav Ashi holds that Ma'amar helps to remove Zikah and dispel the Tzarah so that she will not forbid this one due to Achos Zekukaso;

[Only] after Bi'ah with Ba'alas ha'Ma'amar, he says that her sister goes out due to Achos Ishah.

Question: How can he bring a support from our Mishnah "Yekaimu (they keep them)" [b'Di'eved], but not l'Chatchilah?

According to Rav Ashi, Ma'amar helps at least to dispel the Tzarah and permit Ba'alas Ma'amar l'Chatchilah!

Answer: The support is as follows. If you think that Ma'amar of Heter is totally Docheh, he should totally be Docheh to exempt the Tzarah without Chalitzah;

If so, also Ma'amar of Isur is Docheh the Tzarah, so she does not forbid this one due to Achos Zekukaso! This should give a Ma'amar and dispel...

We ask from what Beis Shamai taught [in our Mishnah] "he keeps his wife." This implies that it totally dispels! [We answer] rather, a Yevamah who is proper for everything...

Explanation: A Ma'amar of Heter is totally Docheh. A Yevamah who is not proper for everything, i.e. Ma'amar of Isur, is not Docheh [even] part. The Ma'amar is not Docheh at all.

Conclusion: We must explain like this according to Rashi.

Objection #1: Everywhere, "Tzarah" is one who falls with her from one house (husband)!

Objection #2: Rashi changes the text of all Seforim [to say] "rather, a Yevamah not proper for everything..." "Rather" was not in the text.

Objection #3: Why did it change [to] the wording "a Yevamah proper...", and did not say like initially "a Ma'amar of Heter acquires. A Ma'amar of Isur does not acquire"?

Explanation #2 (Ri): "Tzarah" means the one who was with her in one house. The Sugya is as follows;

Do not say that according to Beis Shamai, Ma'amar... Rather, it only dispels the Tzarah;

If he gave a Ma'amar to one of two sisters who fell from one house, even though Get is not enough for Ba'alas Ma'amar [to permit her l'Shuk], her Tzarah is totally exempt without Chalitzah;

Since he began to make the Kinyan with this one, even though it is not finished, we apply "he builds one house, and not two houses."

Beis Shamai expound "Bi'ah finishes, but money and a document do not finish" regarding if he wants to expel her, a Get does not suffice;

Rav Ashi holds that Ma'amar does not help to expel her Tzarah without Chalitzah, but it rejects her Tzarah, that she may not do Yibum, and leaves a little Zikah to forbid her l'Shuk until she does Chalitzah;

Implied question: Regarding her sister, Ma'amar totally expels her Tzarah to exempt her l'Shuk, like our Mishnah says "this one goes out due to Achos Ishah"!

Answer: There, her sister fell after the Ma'amar, like I will explain below.

[R. Avin] supports this from our Mishnah, that when Zikah preceded the Ma'amar, the Ma'amar does not totally uproot [Zikah];

If it totally uprooted, each brother could give a Ma'amar to dispel [her sister]!

We ask from Beis Shamai's words "he keeps his wife." This implies that it totally dispels. Also here, he should totally dispel her Tzarah!

We answer "a Yevamah who is proper for everything..." The text does not say "rather." It means as follows;

A Yevamah who is proper for all matters of Yibum, e.g. two Yevamos who fell from one house, that each is proper to do Chalitzah or Yibum at the time she fell...

Also this that Beis Shamai say "Yekaimu", for at the time they fell, mid'Oraisa each was proper for all matters of Yibum. Mid'Oraisa, she may do even Yibum.

[Such a Yevamah] is proper also for part, i.e. for some matters of Yibum, i.e. Chalitzah. Since this Zikah is proper for Yibum, Ma'amar does not totally dispel the Zikah, and she needs Chalitzah;

However, a Yevamah who is not proper for all matters of Yibum, e.g. the case in which Beis Shamai say "he keeps his wife", for she could not do Yibum at the time they fell, for he already gave a Ma'amar to her sister, is not proper for some matters of Yibum, i.e. Chalitzah.

She is totally dispelled through her colleague's (sister's) Ma'amar.

Now we cannot answer like we answered above that "a Ma'amar of Heter dispels...", for even a Ma'amar of Heter does not totally uproot Zikah to permit the Tzarah l'Shuk.

Question (Ri of Orlins): What is the source that Beis Shamai's reason is because a Ma'amar acquires?

Perhaps they hold that Ein Zikah, and it is permitted to be Mevatel Mitzvas Yevamin! They mentioned a Ma'amar due to Beis Hillel.

Answer #1: It is unreasonable that any Tana would be lenient to permit overt Bitul of Mitzvas Yevamin.

Note: R. Gamliel (109a) permits overt Bitul Mitzvas Yevamin. However, that is only when he already was Mekadesh her minor sister; Bitul Mitzvas Yevamin is better than divorce. He does not permit without a pressing need. Why can't we say that the Tana holds (like the Stam Mishnah 39a) that Yibum is the primary Mitzvah? Chalitzah is b'Di'eved. It is better to do one Yibum than two Chalitzos! I answer that Chalitzah is a Tikun for the Mes. (Some learn from the Zohar that it is a better Tikun than Yibum; see Beis Shmuel 165:9.) We do not allow [even] a better Tikun for one Mes if this leaves the other without any Tikun.

Answer #2: Above, we said that Beis Shamai say Yekaimu, but not l'Chatchilah.

Question (Ri of Orlins): Perhaps Beis Shamai's reason is that Zikah is like Kenusah (Nesu'ah)!

Answer: He holds that it is unreasonable to say that Ma'amar was taught only for Beis Hillel, since we can say that it is needed also for Beis Shamai.

Explanation: There is no concern for Bitul Mitzvas Yevamin, like I explained above (18b).

Explanation #1: This refers to during the Regel, when they are commanded about Tum'ah, like it says in Rosh Hashanah (16b).

Explanation #2: She does not become Tamei for him, i.e. she is not obligated to become Tamei for him, according to the opinion that "Lah Yitamei" is an obligation [for Kohanim to become Tamei for relatives, and all the more so for Yisre'elim].

Question: This connotes that Ba'alas Ma'amar is not Adif (stronger) than an Arusah;

Below (39a), Rava himself says that according to Beis Shamai, Ma'amar makes a Vadai Arusah to be Docheh the Tzarah, and a Safek Nesu'ah to inherit a share of [her] property.

Inference: It helps to inherit her!

Answer: Here, the text says "Rabah", Abaye's Rebbi. It says afterwards "Abaye said to him..."

Below, the text says "Rava", who was after Abaye.

(Note: they were colleagues, but Abaye was Rosh Yeshiva before Rava, and his opinion is usually taught before Rava's.)

Question: What was the answer? Also now we can ask that a regular Arusah requires Mesirah l'Chupah. All the more so, if he gave a Ma'amar [it is needed]!

Answer: He gave a Ma'amar and had Bi'ah with her. The Bi'ah makes her like a Nesu'ah. (Maharsha - we know that without a Ma'amar, due to Zikah, Bi'ah even without Mesirah l'Chupah makes her a Nesu'ah. The question was whether Ma'amar makes her like an Arusah and removes some of the Zikah, so now she needs Mesirah Chupah.)

Explanation: If she has no father, or she is not in her father's Reshus (she previously had Nisu'in), he (her Arus) cannot annul her vows, like it says in Nedarim 71a.

Explanation: According to the conclusion, we discuss when he gave a Ma'amar, like it is clear from Nedarim (74a);

R. Eliezer holds that since he gave a Ma'amar and they ruled that he must supply food for her, she vows Al Daito (on condition that he approves);

According to R. Yehoshua, this is only when there is only one Yavam. If there are two, since the brother can disqualify her to him (the one who gave the Ma'amar) through Bi'ah or a Get, she does not vow Al Daito.

According to R. Akiva, even when there is only one Yavam, he cannot annul, even if he gave a Ma'amar, because [other men] are not Chayav Skilah for her like they are for a Na'arah Me'orasah.

Observation: This is unlike Rashi explained above (17b), that the one who says Ein Zikah even when there is only one Yavam is R. Akiva;

He could hold that Yesh Zikah, but even so he cannot annul, because others are not Chayav Skilah for her.