Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rava, Raban Gamliel's reason (for holding 'Ein Get Achar Get, ve'Ein Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar') is because he is in doubt whether Get is Docheh or not and whether Ma'amar is Koneh or not. What he means is - if they *are Koneh*, then the first one has already done its job and there is no room for the second one to take effect; and if they are *not*, then there is nothing to talk about (like we explained in the Mishnah).

(b) In a Beraisa, Raban Gamliel concedes that 'Yesh Achar Ma'amar u'Ma'amar Achar Get'. Similarly, in the case of Get after Ma'amar and Bi'ah, and Ma'amar after Get and Bi'ah (both with regard to *three* Yevamos) - he holds 'Yesh Get Achar Bi'ah u'Ma'amar', and 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Bi'ah ve'Get'.

(c) In the latter two cases, asks Abaye, if, as Rava explains, Raban Gamliel is not sure whether Bi'ah is Docheh and Bi'ah is Koneh, why should the Get after Ma'amar and Bi'ah, and the Ma'amar after the Get and Bi'ah, be valid? In the former case, either the first Ma'amar is Koneh, or if it is not, then the Bi'ah is? And the same in the latter case: either the first Get is Docheh, or, if it is not, then the Bi'ah is Koneh?

(d) Therefore Abaye explains ...

1. ... that, according to Raban Gamliel - Get is definitely partially Docheh and Ma'amar, partially Koneh. However, the aspect of Zikah that a *Get* is Docheh, is not the same aspect as that which *Ma'amar* is Koneh. Consequently, whereas he holds 'Ein Get Achar Get' (because the second Get is coming to be Docheh the same aspect as the first one), he also holds 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Get' (and the same applies to Get Achar Ma'amar).
2. ... that the Rabbanan, who hold 'Yesh Get Achar Get ve'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar' - hold that *each* Yavam acquires a part of *each* Yevamah to be Docheh (with a Get), and a part to be Koneh (with Ma'amar). Consequently, 'Yesh Get Achar Get' and 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar'.

1. ... Bi'ah Pesulah is better than Ma'amar, he means - that Bi'ah after Ma'amar is effective, whereas Ma'amar after Ma'amar is not.
2. ... Ma'amar is better than Bi'ah Pesulah, he means - that Bi'ah after Get does not prevent Ma'amar from taking effect after it (in the case of a third Yevamah), whereas Ma'amar after Get acquires everything that the Get left over, thereby preventing Ma'amar from taking effect after it.

(a) According to Raban Gamliel (who holds 'Ein Get Achar Get'), if someone gives two Gitin to two Yevamos, he might prefer to perform Chalitzah with the second one - because, seeing as her Zikah has *not been weakened* by a Get, it is a more perfect Chalitzah than the first one, which *has*.

(b) Nevertheless, the Beraisa says that he should perform Chalitzah with the *first* Yevamah - because her relatives are anyway forbidden to him because of the Get, so why perform Chalitzah with the second one, causing her relatives to become forbidden, too.

(c) According to the Chachamim - the relatives of the second Yevamah are forbidden to him anyway (since they hold 'Yesh Get Achar Get'), so it makes no difference with which Yevamah he performs Chalitzah.

(d) In the equivalent case of two Yevamin and one Yevamah (if each one gave the Yevamah a Get) - Raban Gamliel holds that the second Yavam is permitted to marry the Yevamah's relatives, whereas according to the Rabbanan, they are forbidden to him.

(a) Shmuel says 'Chalatz le'Ba'alas ha'Get, Lo Nifterah Tzarah' - because, in his opinion, the Zikah has been weakened by the Get, and as a result, the Chalitzah that is performed with her is not sufficiently strong to remove the full Zikah of the Tzarah.

(b) We ask on Shmuel from Raban Gamliel in the Beraisa, who says 'Choletz la'Rishonah' (the Ba'alas ha'Get, whose Chalitzah then exempts the Tzarah who did not receive a [valid] Get). We cannot however, ask from the Chachamim, who also say 've'Choletz le'Achas Meihen' - because, according to them, 'Yesh Get Achar Get', in which case, the Zikos of both women have been weakened.

(c) Shmuel resolves this Kashya from Raban Gamliel - by establishing that Raban Gamliel holds 'Ein Zikah', which is why the bond between the Yavam and the Yevamah is easily broken (even through a Chalitzah with a Ba'alas Get; whereas *he* holds 'Yesh Zikah', and Zikah requires a strong Chalitzah to remove it.

5)

(a) We suggest that the Rabbanan hold 'Yesh Zikah' - because we just concluded that Raban Gamliel holds 'Ein Zikah'.

(b) Nevertheless, the Tana tells us that if two Yevamin gave a Get to one Yevamah, only one Chalitzah is required. This poses a Kashya on Rabah bar Rav Huna Amar Rav - who says that when Chalitzah Pesulah is required, then all the brothers need to perform it.

(c) But in our case too, seeing as the Chalitzah follows a Get, it is a Chalitzah, and, if the Chachamim hold 'Yesh Zikah' then, according to his opinion, both Yevamin ought to perform Chalitzah, not just one of them?

(d) He answers that, in fact - the Rabbanan too, hold 'Ein Zikah' (whereas he only says that all the brothers require Chalitzah because he holds like those Tana'im who say 'Yesh Zikah'), and the Rabbanan's Machlokes is confined to 'Get Achar Get' and 'Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar'.

(a) According to Raban Gamliel, if the Yavam made Ma'amar first with one Yevamah, then with the other, the first one requires a Get and Chalitzah - not Yibum, because we are afraid that he may then go on to perform Yibum with the second one.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that Raban Gamliel, Beis Shamai, Rebbi Shimon, ben Azai and Rebbi Nechemyah all agree - that Ma'amar is largely Koneh.

(c) We see in our Sugya, that Raban Gamliel holds that Ma'amar is Koneh - from the fact that he holds 'Ein Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar'.

(a) Beis Shamai say that if one of two brothers who were married to two sisters dies, and the third brother has already made Ma'amar with the Yevamah when the second brother dies - he may perform Yibum with her, and the second Yevamah is exempt from Yibum - a proof that he too, holds that Ma'amar is Koneh (Otherwise the first Yevamah should be forbidden because of Achos Zekukaso).

(b) Chazal gave the Bi'ah of a Katan over nine, the status of Ma'amar.

(c) When the Chachamim ruled that a Yavam Katan who is over nine, who performs Yibum with his Yevamah, after his brother (also a Katan over nine) has already done so, forbids her on his brother - Rebbi Shimon remarked that if the Bi'ah of the first brother *is a Bi'ah*, then that of the second is not, and if it is *not*, then neither is the Bi'ah of the second one.

(d) When Rebbi Shimon remarked that if the Bi'ah of the first brother is a Bi'ah, then that of the second is not - he meant that it is considered a Ma'amar (because, as we just explained, that is what Chazal consider the Bi'ah of a Katan to be). We see that, in his opinion, Ma'amar is Koneh.

(a) ben Azai makes a distinction between Ma'amar after Ma'amar by two Yevamin and one Yevamah, and Ma'amar after Ma'amar by two Yevamos and one Yavam. In the former case, he holds 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar (because Chazal instituted a separate Ma'amar by each Yavam, but not by each Yevamah, which is why), by two Yevamos and one Yavam, he holds 'Ein Ma'amar Achar Ma'amar'. From the former case we see - that he too, holds that Ma'amar is Koneh.

(b) We prove from Rebbi Nechemyah, who says in our Mishnah that there is nothing after Bi'ah, even if it comes in the middle or at the end - because one of the cases in the Mishnah (Bi'ah Achar Get), is in fact, a Bi'ah Pesulah, which Chazal gave the Din of Ma'amar - that he too, clearly holds Ma'amar is Koneh.