The text: In this Reisha, the text says "the first goes out due to Achos Ishah";

It refers to the first woman to fall, similar to above (17a). In the second clause (the coming Mishnah), the text says "the second goes out..."

Question: Why didn't Rav Nachman deduce from the Mishnah above (17a)? (There, if Shimon gave a Ma'amar, his other wife does Chalitzah, for she is like Tzaras Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo. He should infer that if not for the Ma'amar, she could do Yibum, for Ein Zikah! Zera Yitzchak answers based on Tosfos 18a DH v'Hai. From reasoning, we would say that Yesh Zikah. If only one Mishnah taught that after a Ma'amar, the Tzarah does Chalitzah, we would say that even without a Ma'amar, she does Chalitzah. It mentioned a Ma'amar to teach unlike Beis Shamai. Rav Nachman waited for the second such Mishnah. We do not need two Mishnayos to teach unlike Beis Shamai! Rather, if not for the Ma'amar, she could do Yibum, for Ein Zikah.)

Implied question: In other places we do not give this weak answer. Rather, we say that the Tana taught this, and there is no need to teach this (law in the Seifa, which follows from the Reisha)!

Answer: Here, we give this weak answer, because the entire clause is not needed.

Implied question: In this clause, we could have discussed when one brother is single!

Answer: We mentioned [that he is married to a stranger] to teach that also the stranger is forbidden, for she was once Tzaras Achos Ishah.

Slight question: The Mishnah does not mention the Tzarah at all!

Question #1: According to R. Yirmeyah, who says that the Tana of our Perek holds that Nisu'in causes the fall to Yibum, why didn't it say that one of the sisters died first, and afterwards the husband of her sister died, and the stranger's husband did Yibum, and died?

She (the live sister) is forbidden to him (the remaining brother), since she was once forbidden to him (the first time she fell), since Nisu'in causes the fall! (Before her sister died, she was Achos Ishto.)

Question #2: In the clause below (32a) of two brothers, we could have taught that one of the sisters died, and afterwards her sister's husband died!

Answer: "Nisu'in causes the fall" helps only so that if she was once Tzaras Ervah, she has no Heter afterwards, even though at the time she fell she is no longer Tzaras Ervah;

However, here, we do not say that because Nisu'in causes the fall, it is considered as if she fell in the lifetime of his wife, and she went out at the time due to Achos Ishah.

Question: Why does it mention three brothers? It should have mentioned two brothers married to two sisters, and one of them divorced his wife and married another woman and he died!

According to R. Yirmeyah, this is fine, since it needs to teach that Yesh Zikah, like Rav Ashi deduces in the Gemara.

Also according to Rava, it needed to exclude when he died and did not divorce her.

However, according to Rav Nachman, who holds that Ein Zikah, this is difficult. Why did it mention three brothers?

Answer: According to Rav Nachman, it mentioned three brothers by the way, to teach that Ein Zikah;

He holds like R. Yirmeyah, who holds that Nisu'in causes the fall. If there were Zikah, she would be forbidden, even though he divorced and afterwards died;

This is because before he divorced her, the Nochris was considered Zekukah to him from when she married him, for the initial Nisu'in causes the fall.

Rav Ashi derived from it that Yesh Zikah. He holds that we do not forbid her, because the only way to forbid her is if two marriages cause the fall.

Question: Why was the one who divorced able to marry her? She is Tzaras Achos Ishto through Zikah! (It is as if she is married to the husband of the divorcee's sister.)

Answer: She is considered Tzaras Achos Ishto through Zikah only when his brother died, and both of them fell to Yibum to him, but not when he is alive.

Implied question: Bahag wrote that if he died and did not divorce, she is forbidden to both of them! (I.e. she is considered Tzaras Achos Ishto through Zikah even when his brother is alive.)

Answer: This is not when both are alive. Rather, to each she will be forbidden when his brother dies.

Explanation (Rivam): This is even if he merely signed it [but the Get itself is not in his handwriting].

Implied question (Bava Basra 175b - Mishnah): If one brought against someone a document in his handwriting... (i.e. the document itself is in his handwriting)!

Answer: (No.) It means that he signed it.

Proof - Citation (Kesuvos 21a - Abaye): If one wants to show his signature, he should sign only on earthenware (the writing can be erased, so the signature does not prove that he agreed to what is written above) or at the top of a parchment;

Citation (cont.): [He should not sign in the middle or bottom of a parchment,] lest a lowly person find it [and write a document above it], and a Mishnah says "if one brought against someone a document in his handwriting... (Beis Din will honor the document, even though only the signature is in his handwriting!)

Explanation (Ri): A Get in his handwriting without witnesses is Pasul due to the date. He can write a [false] early date if he wants.

Question #1: Since he wants to divorce her, why are we are concerned for scheming?

Question #2: If he is suspected to write an early date, and scheme with his wife to swindle buyers who bought Peros [of his wife's property] that he sold from the date on the Get until now...

Note: It is clear from below that Tosfos rules like the opinion (Gitin 17) that the husband owns the Peros until he wrote the Get. The Get 'proves' that she owns the Peros from the date, so the sale is void, and she takes them from the buyers.)

If so (this is the concern), we should not rely on the date written! Why is the Get Pasul?

Answer: Even though he comes to divorce her, we are concerned for scheming;

This is like we are concerned in Bava Metzi'a (19b) regarding a receipt [for payment of a Kesuvah. The Gemara asks that perhaps it was predated, and she sold her Kesuvah after the date, but before she was paid. The receipt 'proves' that he paid it before she sold it!]

Answer (cont.): If we would [be Machshir the Get, but] not rely on the date written in it, sometimes she would lose improperly, when it was not predated;

We suspect that on the day it was given he wrote and predated it (so we do not let her take from buyers), and she improperly loses Peros from the date until the giving;

However, now that we disqualify it, she does not lose improperly. It is proper that she not take from buyers, for the husband forfeits Peros from the writing and signing, i.e. of a Kosher Get.

Explanation: These three Gitin are Pesulim, and if she married [based on such a Get] the child is Kosher, like the Mishnah (Gitin 86a) says.

According to the opinion that the text of the Mishnah says "Kesav Yado and one witness" (is one of the three), the Reisha needed to teach Kesav Yado without witnesses to teach that even so, the child is Kosher;

The Seifa needed to teach [Kesav Yado, but] there is only one witness to teach that even so, she may not marry l'Chatchilah with it.

Question: According to the opinion that the text says "Kesav Sofer (a scribe wrote it) and one witness", we should be concerned lest the scribe wrote it to practice, threw it to the wasteheap, and the wife found it and signed one witness on it! (Perhaps Tosfos asks why one opinion (Gitin 86a) says that if she married, she need not leave.)

Answer: Scribes are concerned lest a pitfall result, and are careful [not to throw Gitin to the wasteheap];

Even so, a scribe and one witness are not considered like two witnesses to divorce l'Chatchilah with it.

Question: Granted, if he did Yibum and afterwards divorced, she was already Tzaras Ervah;

However, if he divorced and afterwards did Yibum, she was not b'Chezkas Heter l'Shuk!

Strengthening of question: R. Yirmeyah holds that we discuss only when he divorced and afterwards did Yibum!

Answer: In any case, she had Chezkas Heter l'Shuk, for we establish the Ervah in her Chazakah that she was not divorced.

Question: Here we establish a woman in Chezkas Heter l'Shuk, even though when the Safek arose, she had Chezkas Isur, for her husband was still alive;

In Chulin (9a), we say that an animal in its lifetime has Chezkas Isur, until you know that it had a proper Shechitah;

After it was slaughtered, it has Chezkas Heter, until you know what made it Terefah.

Inference: This is only regarding a Re'usa that occurred after Shechitah, it has Chezkas Heter, e.g. a wolf came and took the intestines and returned them punctured. We are not concerned lest there already was a hole where they were punctured [by the wolf's teeth].

However, we do not say so if the Safek arose in its lifetime, e.g. perhaps it was Drusah (clawed by a venomous animal), since when the Safek arose there was still Chezkas Isur.

Answer (Ri): There, we are concerned for Safek Drusah because it is more common and indicative for Isur than Heter;

The same applies when a thorn settled in the Veshet (esophagus). We are concerned lest [it made a hole, and] it became healthy (covered over, so we do not see the hole now) according to the opinion that is concerned for Safek Drusah, like it says in Chulin (43b).