Previous daf

1)

(a) We just cited the Beraisa 'ha'Choletz li'Yevimto ve'Chazar ve'Kid'shah, u'Meis, Tzerichah Chalitzah min ha'Achin. Amad Echad min ha'Achin ve'Kid'shah, Ein Lah Alav K'lum'. The Seifa goes well with Resh Lakish, the Reisha does not, since, according to him, a Chalutzah whom the Chalutz or one of the brothers re-married ought not to require Chalitzah (as we just explained). Rav Ashi (who holds like Resh Lakish) resolves this problem by explaining 'the brothers' to mean Achin ha'Yilodim.
What does 'Achim ha'Yilodim' mean?

(b) How does this solve the problem?

(c) Ravina holds like Rebbi Yochanan. He explains the Reisha according to the Rabbanan (by Achin ha'Noladim).
How does he answer Resh Lakish's Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan from the Seifa (cited at the end of 10a.) - Why the Tana says 'Ein Lo Alav K'lum'?

(d) According to Rebbi Yochanan, what does one of the brothers transgress, if he has relations with a Yevamah after his brother performed Yibum with her Tzarah, an Asei or a Lo Sa'aseh? What is the source for this?

(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, Tzaras Sotah is forbidden.
What is the case (see Tosfos DH 'Tzaras')?

(b) What is the reason for this Halachah, particularly considering that she is only forbidden to her husband by a La'av (so why should at least Chalitzah not be obligatory)?

(a) If, after hearing testimony that her husband had died, and remarrying, her husband appeared, she is forbidden to both men. According to the Rabbanan, should they both subsequently die, she requires Chalitzah from the brother of each one.
What does Rebbi Shimon (in Perek ha'Ishah Rabah) say about ...

1. ... about her?
2. ... about her Tzarah?

(b) What can we infer from here with regard to the Tzarah, according to the Rabbanan?

(c) How will Rav reconcile this with his own ruling, that Tzaras Sotah is considered an Ervah, and does not even require Chalitzah?

(d) But is this answer not obvious? Why did Rav Chisda even need to ask such a question?

(a) Why, in the case of a regular Sotah, does the Torah write the word "Nitme'ah" three times (once with a 'Vav')?

(b) What does the Tana of the Beraisa rule with regard to performing Yibum with a Sotah, should her husband die before taking her to the Beis-Hamikdash?

(c) How will Rav reconcile this with his own ruling that, by a Sotah, there is no Chalitzah either?

5)

(a) The Torah writes by the La'av of Machzir Gerushaso in Ki Seitzei "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah".
What does this come to ...

1. ... preclude, according to Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar quoting Rebbi Elazar?
2. ... include, according to the Chachamim, who do not differentiate between Machzir Gerushaso min ha'Nisu'in or min ha'Eirusin?

(b) What do the Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "ve'Haysah le'Ish Acher"?

(c) How do we reconcile Rav, who just argued that a Sotah Safek must make Chalitzah because it is only by a Sotah Vaday that the Torah mentions Tum'ah, with the Rabbanan, who just learned a La'av by Sotah *she'Nisterah* from "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah" (Ki Seitzei)? Then why do they say 'she'Nisterah'?

(d) But has the Torah not already written "ve'Nisterah ve'Hi Nitma'ah"(Naso)? Why do we need two Pesukim for Sotah she'Nisterah?

(a) Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar states that the Torah writes by Machzir Gerushaso 'Havayah ve'Ishus'.
What does he mean?

(b) What does he extrapolate from there?

(a) Rav Yehudah asked Rav Sheishes whether the brother of a Machzir Gerushaso mi'she'Niseis is Chayav to perform Yibum with her Tzarah.
Why is this She'eilah confined to the Rabbanan, but not to Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar?

(b) What will Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar then infer from the Pasuk "To'eivah *Hi"*?

(c) According to the Rabbanan, why might "To'eivah Hi" apply to Machzir Gerushaso, despite the fact that, in their opinion, it refers to a Sotah (Vaday)?

(d) Why, on the other hand, might it not?

(a) Alternatively, the She'eilah is confined to Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar, but, according to the Rabbanan, it is obvious that 'Keivan de'I'akar I'akar. What is then the She'eilah, according to Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar'?

(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from a Mishnah in ha'Choletz: 'Haysah Achas Kesheirah, ve'Achas Pesulah, Im Hayah Choletz, Choletz li'Pesulah, ve'Im Hayah Meyabem, Meyabem li'Kesheirah'. We initially assume that Kesheirah and Pesulah cannot mean le'Alma (to others, but not to him).
Why do we assume that?

(c) What then do they mean? How will this resolve the current She'eilah?

(d) Perhaps the Beraisa is referring to the Tzarah of an ordinary Chayvei La'avin such as a Gerushah li'Kohen Hedyot?

(a) We refute this proof however, by re-instating the Mishnah by Kesheirah and Pesulah le'Alma, dismissing our initial objection by establishing it like Rav Yosef.
What does Rav Yosef say? How do we now explain the Mishnah according to him?

(b) So we try to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa 'ha'Machzir Gerushaso mi'she'Niseis Hi ve'Tzarasah Choletzes'. This is obviously a printing error. How do we refute the suggested text 'O Hi O Tzarasah Choletzes' (which would resolve our She'eilah)?

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan posed the same She'eilah as Rav Yehudah (whether Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso is subject to Yibum or not).
Why did he not ask the same She'eilah regarding the Gerushah herself?

(b) Then what is the She'eilah, according to him?

(c) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Rebbi Yochanan posed the She'eilah regarding the Gerushah herself.
What is the She'eilah?

(d) Why did he not pose it with regard to the Tzarah?

Next daf