Yevamos 27

We say that the proof that a Get is no better than Maamar and Maamar is no better than Get is from the Shita of R' Gamliel. Although he holds that once a Get is given to one Yevama then a second Get to a different one does not take effect (and doesn't disqualify her to marry the brother's relatives.) The same thing applies with giving Maamar after a Maamar. However, he allows a Maamar to take effect after a Get and a Get after a Maamar. So we must say they're even.

Tosfos asks: This last Halacha is true even to the Rabanan (that hold that there is Get after Get and Maamar after Maamar), so why does the Gemara only bring a proof from R' Gamlilel?

Tosfos answers the Rabanan that hold a second Get take effect after the first Get despite that it must be weaker (since the first Get was the one that "divorced" her and the second is "divorcing" someone who is already "divorced".) Therefore, even if Maamar or Get is stronger than the other, it will still take effect.

However, R' Gamliel who holds the second Get or Maamar doesn't take effect after the first, because he holds that a weaker transaction can't take effect on a stronger transaction. Therefore, since a Get takes effect on a Maamar and a Maamar takes effect on Get, we must conclude that one is not weaker than the other and therefore they're even.

Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz 

If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available 
at 
tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 26

According to those that don't hold of Zika, the problem why two brothers can't do Yibum to two sisters (one brother to each sister) is: we're afraid after one does Yibum to one sister the second brother would die. Therefore the Mitzvah of Yibum will fall off the second sister (since now she's an Ervah, your wife's sister.) So better do Chalitzah on both. Even if the second brother dies before he does Chalitza to the second sister, the first brother can still do the Mitzvah of Chalitza. However if there are three brothers we don't need to be concerned that two of them will die, and one may do Yibum on one of them.

Tosfos asks: here it seems that one needs to be concerned about one person dying and not two.  However, in the beginning of Yuma, the Mishna implies that if you need to be concerned of the death of one you need to be concerned of the death of two. The Chachumim say that though a Kohain Gadol needs to have a wife for Yom Kippur, he doesn't need to marry a second wife in the event that his first wife dies. If you need to be concerned, then two wives wouldn't be enough since you'll need to worry that both of them will die.

Tosfos answers : Over there refers to the concern that the person will die in a small space of time, that day of Yom Kipur. If you're going to be that paranoid, then you'll have to worry about two deaths on that day. Over here, since it might be weeks or months between the first brothers Yibum and the second brothers then it's not so far out  that the second brother might die. Therefore it's a big concern that one might die, however, even over that space of time, we don't need to be concerned that both brothers will die.

Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz
Tosfos Project

Still some free copies left of ENGLISH Sukka with TOSFOS available at
tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 25

R' Yosef says that someone is only believed to says that Ploni did Mishkav Zachor to him against his will, but not if he did it on purpose. If he did it on purpose he's a Rasha and is Pasul to say witness.

However, Rava says that he's not believed about his involvement, since one is not believed on a relative, and a person is his own relative. So we split his words and only believe the part that Ploni did that action, but not that it was done to you.

Tosfos asks why is this different to what Rava said in Kesuvos? Over there Rava says that if witnesses on a document said that they signed the documents but they were forced to on the threat of losing their money, they are not believed that they were forced and the owner of the document can collect. Since he has no right to sign falsely for loss of money, we can't believe him. Why don't we believe him part way, that he was forced, but we don't believe through loss of money, but because their very life was threatened.  So we should believed that they were forced and the loan is no good.

Tosfos answers that since the whole institute of having to verify the witnesses' signatures are only rabbinic, from the Torah we assume all documents are valid, we don't invalidate a document unless he specifically says a good reason why it's invalid and not if he we need to split his words.

Alternatively, since most times someone is forced to sign falsely on a document is not through threat of his life, we assume that his life was never in danger unless he specifically says so.

 

Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz

If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available
at
tosfos.ecwid.com

Limud Torah e-S'farim tosfos.ecwid.com

Limud Torah e-Sefarim

Daf Yomi: Yevamos 24

We don't accept Geirim in the days of Dovid and Shlomo or in the days of Mashiach. Since those were the days of plenty for the Jews, we need to be concerned that the converts motive is for financial gain.

Tosfos says we cannot ask from Itti Hagiti and Bas Pharoh who converted in the days of Dovid and Shlomo. They were independently wealthy and didn't need any welfare.

Tosfos asks: how could Hillel convert the non-Jew who wanted to convert on condition that he'll be the Kohain Gadol and wear his magnificent clothing? Is he not converting for an alternative reason?

Tosfos answers: that Hillel was confident that after he'll show him the right way, he'll convert for the right reasons.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out my English E-Sefer- Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a.
Learn Tosfos like you never learned before.
Still giving away free copies @ tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 23

The Gemara brings an argument about the Torah's prohibition on intermarriage. R' Shimon holds we Darshin the reason of the Pasuk. All the Torah needs to say by the seven nations they can't marry and I would know that they are prohibited exclusively. The reason of intermarriage so that the wife will convince him to go off the Torah's path. I would assume it only applies to the seven nations who were totally against the Torah's way of life. So the Torah says"because she'll lead him off" to include all Goyim who'll remove him from the Torah's way of life at one degree or another.

The Rabanan doesn't Darshen the reason of the Pasuk. When the Pasuk says that it's forbidden to intermarry I would assume any Goy. So the Torah says "because she'll lead him off" to tell us only the seven nations are prohibited from the Torah. The other nations are prohibited from the Rabanan.

Tosfos points out, that though in Yevamos we Darshin that you cannot marry someone from the seven nations even after Geirus. (Since the simple meaning of marriage is only after she converts and can have Kiddushin.) Although after conversion we cannot say there is a reason to exclude the seven nations more than the others, because after conversion she is for the Torah's way of life and would not mislead him. However, Chazal says it only applies to the seven nations.

The reasoning for that is that we see the Torah forbade a Mitzri and Adomi and Moabi and Amoni, it implies that the other converts are permitted.

Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz
Tosfos Project
tosfos.ecwid.com

Still some free copies left of ENGLISH Sukka with TOSFOS available at
tosfos.ecwid.com