Previous daf

1)

(a) We suggest that, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, "Ervas bas Eishes Avicha" comes to preclude Chayvei La'avin, teaching us that Kidushin will not be effective on them. We refute this contention however, on the basis of the Pasuk "*Ki Siheyenah* le'Ish Sh'tei Nashim, *ha'Achas Ahuvah, ve'ha'Achas Senu'ah* ... " - which speaks, not about wives whom the husband loves and hates (because why would the Torah even need to inform us that he cannot transfer the birthright of the one in favor of the other?), but about transferring the birthright from the son of one whose marriage is hated (a Chayvei La'avin), in favor of one whose marriage is loved, and the Torah writes "Ki Sih'yenah" (that the Kidushin is effective).

(b) We learn that even a sister from Chayvei *Kares* is subject to incest, from the Pasuk "Ervas Achoscha ... Moledes Bayis O Moledes Chutz" - which means whether one tells the father to remain with his wife or one tells him to send her away (because she is a Chayvei Kareis).

(c) We prefer to *include* a sister from Chayvei Kares, with whom Kidushin *is* effective regarding other people - and to *preclude* one from a Shifchah or a Nochris - with whom it is *not*.

(d) We do not include the latter, seeing as Kidushin *will* take effect on her mother after she converts (and preclude the former, which will *not*) - because, when she converts, she will be a new person, and until such time as she does, it is the previous S'vara, giving the edge to a sister from Chayvei Kareis, that is prevalent.

(a) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah Tihyeh la'Adonehah" - that the daughter of a Shifchah goes after the mother; she belongs to her master, and is neither considered the daughter of her biological father, nor the sister of her biological siblings.

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - learns the same from this Pasuk as the Rabbanan, only he uses the previous Pasuk ("Bas Eishes Avicha") for a Nochris, and this one for a Shifchah.

(c) Having told us that Kidushin is not effective by ...

1. ... Shifchah, the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to tell us that it is not effective by a Nochris either - because a Nochris *has* Yichus (she goes after her father, whereas a Shifchah, like a donkey (to which Avraham compared Eliezer in this regard) *does* not.
2. ... a Nochris, the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to tell us that it is not effective by a Shifchah - because a Shifchah is obligated to observe certain Mitzvos (like a Jewish woman), whereas a Nochris is not.

(d) The Rabbanan learn that Kidushin is not effective on a Nochris - from the Pasuk "Ki Yasir es Bincha mei'Acharai", from which Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, learns that it is the Nochri husband who leads his Jewish wife's children astray (to serve idols), but not the Nochri wife with her Jewish husband's children (because they are not Jewish anyway).

(a) Ravina extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ki Yasir es Bincha mei'Acharai" - that the son of a Jewish woman and a Nochri is Jewish.

(b) There is a Machlokes in ha'Choletz whether the child who is born from the relationship between a Nochri and a Jewish woman is Kasher or whether he is a Mamzer. We have no proof that Ravina holds that he is Kasher - because although he says nothing about the child being a Mamzer, he may however, consider his as being Pasul (and if it is a daughter, she will be disqualified from marrying a Kohen).

(c) The Pasuk of "Ki Yasir ... " (which teaches us that a woman's baby is like her) is written by the seven nations. We Darshen that the same applies to the women of other nations from the words "Ki Yasir" - 'to include all those who lead astray'. This must go like Rebbi Shimon, who Darshens automatically the reasons of the Torah; according to the Rabbanan, the Pasuk is required to teach us why the Torah distinguishes between the seven nations and others (to teach us that the members of other nations are not so attached to Avodah-Zarah).

(d) The Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon know that children who are born to the mothers of other nations are also like them - from "Ervas bes Eishes Avicha ... " (as we learned above), because the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon are actually Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, one may take a security from a wealthy widow - because we understand from a S'vara that the Torah only forbids taking a security from a widow because, when one returns it each night or each day, one causes rumors to start spreading. And since a wealthy widow does not need the security to be returned daily, this reason is not applicable in her case.

(b) The Rabbanan disagree with him - because they do not Darshen the Torah's reasons. Consequently, when the Torah forbids taking a security from a widow, it incorporates *all* widows.

5)

(a) If someone betrothed one of two women, and he doesn't know which one he betrothed - he must give each woman a Get?

(b) He cannot divorce one of them and remain with the other one - in case she is his wife's sister (who does not become permitted through divorce).

(c) If he dies (before he managed to divorce them), leaving one brother, that brother must perform Chalitzah with both of them. If he has two brothers - one of them makes Chalitzah with one of them, permitting the other one to perform Yibum with the second one if he so wishes (if the first one made Chalitzah with the correct woman, then having removed the Zikah, the sister is permitted to his brother anyway; whereas if it was the wrong woman, then the second one's Yibum is a valid Yibum).

(a) If two men betrothed two sisters, and neither can remember which one he betrothed - then each one must give a Get to each sister, in case she is his wife's sister.

(b) If each one has a brother, then each brother must perform Chalitzah with each of the Yevamos. If one of them has *one* brother and the other, *two* - then Lechatchilah, after the first one has performed Chalitzah with both sisters, one of the brothers makes Chalitzah with one of the sisters (to remove the Zikah [and the Isur of Achos Zekukaso from his brother]), and the second brother may perform Yibum with the other sister.

(c) The one brother may not perform Yibum with the one Yevamah ...

1. ... *before* his brother has performed Chalitzah with the other one - in case she is Achos Zekukaso.
2. ... *after* performing Chalitzah with the other one - in case she is Achos Chalutzaso?

(a) If each man has two brothers - then one brother from each pair must perform Chalitzah with one of the Yevamos, after which his brother may perform Yibum with the sister; because, he is performing Yibum either with his own Yevamah or with the sister of his brother's Chalutzah (who is permitted).

(b) Even if the first pair of brothers performed Chalitzah, the second pair cannot just perform Yibum, one with each woman - because the Chalitzah of the first pair only removes the Zikah of the one sister who fell to them, leaving the Zikah of the second one intact. Consequently, each Yevamah is a Safek Achos Zekukaso of each brother.

(c) In this latter case - one of them makes Chalitzah, then the other one is permitted to make Yibum.

(d) In this case and in all the previous cases where there are two brothers, if both brothers performed Yibum with one of the Yevamos, they are permitted to retain them - because even if the first one performed an Isur, when he married Achos Zekukaso, the moment his brother performs Yibum on the Zekukah, he removes the Zikah from her, and there is no longer an Isur for the brother to remain with her sister.

(a) 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah' is - Kidushin which cannot lead to Bi'ah.

(b) There no proof from our Mishnah (from the fact that person who betrothed one of two sisters needs to give a Get at all) that Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah' is not effective - because the Tana is not speaking when the man failed to specify which sister he was betrothing, but that he forgot afterwards which one he had betrothed (in which case it was a 'Kidushin ha'Mesurin le'Bi'ah').

(c) This answer is inherent in the Lashon of our Mishnah - which says, not 've'Eino Yadu'a' ('it was not known'), but 've'Eino Yodei'a ('he does not know) Eizeh Meihen Kideish'.

(d) The Tana needs to tell us that someone who betrothed one of two women, and he doesn't know which one he betrothed, must give each woman a Get - because of the Seifa, to teach us that if he has two brothers, the one must make Chalitzah *before* his brother may perform Yibum, in order to remove the Zikah (to prevent him from transgressing the Isur of 'Achos Zekukaso').

(a) The second case, where two men betrothed two sisters, teaches us two things that we did not know from the first one. One of them is that we do not decree, forbidding the second of the two brothers to perform Yibum at all, because of the single brother (who might follow suite) - the second, that even one of the two brothers did make Chalitzah first, the other brother is forbidden to perform Yibum before the single brother has made Chalitzah on both of them, to avoid transgressing the Isur of Yevamah le'Shuk (in case she is the single brother's Yevamah).

(b) The third case, when each of the two deceased men has two brothers, and the first of each pair performs Chalitzah and the second, Yibum, does not seem to be teaching us anything new. In fact, the Tana is coming to teach us - that, even though each one will be permitted to perform Yibum, we do not decree that they might forget and dispense with the Chalitzah altogether.

(c) There is more reason to decree in this case than in the previous one (when one of the deceased men has only *one* brother) - because there, seeing as only one of the brothers will ultimately be permitted to perform Yibum, there is less likelihood that they will dispense with the Chalitzah; and besides, the single brother has to perform Chalitzah first, so how can the first brother forget to follow suite?

(a) If two out of four brothers who are married to two sisters, die - the Mishnah in 'Arba'ah Achim' says that the other two brothers must perform Chalitzah.

(b) Should they perform Yibum instead of Chalitzah, they are obligated to divorce their Yevamos immediately.

(c) If we hold ...

1. ... 'Yesh Zikah', and the reason that the two (out of four) brothers must perform Chalitzah and not Yibum, is because *each sister* is Achos Zekukaso - then the second sister will remain Asur to the second brother, even after his brother has performed Chalitzah with her sister, because once a Zekukah is intrinsically forbidden, she remains forbidden forever; whereas in our case, where only *one of the sisters* is intrinsically forbidden, as soon as the brother has performed Chalitzah with one sister, the other one is automatically permitted (as we explained above).
2. ... 'Ein Zikah', and the reason that the two out of the four brothers must perform Chalitzah and not Yibum is because, should the one brother perform Yibum, the other brother may die before he has had a chance to perform Yibum or Chalitzah, then, should this happen, the second sister will be free to marry le'Shuk, because she is the sister of the remaining brother's wife, and the Mitzvah of Yibum will have been nullified. This does not apply in our case, because the two Yevamos did not fall from two brothers. Consequently, only one of the sisters fell to each brother, though we do not know which one, and the only Isur was that of Achos Zekukaso, which fell away with the Yibum or with the Chalitzah of one of the brothers with her sisters (even if we would hold 'Yesh Zikah').

(a) Rebbi Shilo quoted a Beraisa that when, in the previous case, the Tana permits the second pair who performed Yibum to remain with their Yevamos, that applies even to Kohanim, despite the fact that the two women are Safek Chalutzos - because Chalutzah is only an Isur de'Rabbanan, and Chazal did not decree on a *Safek*.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "*ve'Ishah* Gerushah mei'Ishah Lo Yikachu" - that Kohanim are forbidden to marry a Chalutzah.

(c) We refer to a Chalutzah le'Kohen as an Isur de'Rabbanan despite the Pasuk - because the Pasuk is only an Asmachta.