If a brother did ma'amar with his brother's yibum, and then divorced that Levirate betrothed, leaves the possibility of yibum for the third brother, with the co-wife. But the woman who had ma'mar and then a get is in a complicated position. (And corresponding other cases). Plus a new mishnah, with another case (well, set if cases) - and bumping up against the claim that the mishnah isn't supposed to be changed. Also, the difference of approach between R. Yosei and R. Shimon, on eisher ach vs achot ishto. Which boils down to one prohibition following another prohibition, and the question is which wins, or does one?

When it's not clear that a couple has either gotten married or (a different couple) divorced... where witnesses are essential. Plus, the case of Bar Shtaya and his property and testimony that can't be used as determinate. Also, a new mishnah, with another yibum case - this time, where 3 brothers are married to 3 women who are not related to each other. It's a case of ma'amar, 2 husbands (brothers) who die, and the question of 2 yibum bonds to two men (or is that even a thing).

5 mishnayot, with templates of 3 brothers, two of whom marry two sisters, and the third brother marries an unrelated woman. The cases play out the different variables and their implications for yibum and chalitzah for the remaining family members. Plus, a mishnaic comment on the 15 co-wives from the first mishnah of Yevamot.

A new mishnah - that facilitates a deeper dive into ma'amar, the Levirate betrothal. Via a case of 3 brothers, and the complications there that get in the way of yibum. Plus, the language of "kiddushin," a formal act of acquisition, and how ma'amar compares to kiddushin. Also, the undoing of vows that a husband can do for a wife.... Can a yavam do so for a shomeret yavam, a woman who awaits yibum? How strong is the bond between them to allow for this? And lo and behold, ma'amar has a role here too.

Trigger warning there is a discussion about rape in today’s daf. In today’s daf we learn who can decide what is in the canon of Mishnah and who can argue with who. How do forbidden relationships have a different standing if the connection (from mother to child) is via rape.

A case where chalitzah is expected, but the man gives a get instead -- or where there's a yibum betrothal (ma'amar). Consider the layering of procedure and requirement that clouds the question of the practice at the Torah level of requirement. Also, the case of 2 sisters who had been married to two brothers, with one brother remaining to dispatch the yibum requirement. With a focus on Rav's opinion, and whether he contradicts himself.

Finishing chapter 2, and starting chapter 3, with a mishnah apiece. First, a case where a woman was able to leave her marriage - are any of the people involved in the case in court allowed to marry her? The answer - in sweeping terms for which there are of course exceptions - is no. Ulterior motives, and all. But with an important caveat or few. Plus, chapter 3 returns us to cases of yibum. For example, 4 brothers, two of whom married two sisters, where those two brothers then died, and the question is how yibum or chalitzah kicks in for the sisters. And the consequences when the parameters are changed, such as forbidden relationships messing with the yibum cases.

The daf discusses a few different scenarios where a woman is released from her marriage but someone involved with the end of her marriage may not marry her afterward.

On the mitzvah that is on the eldest of brothers to do yibum. Plus, what is the purpose of yibum?! (Finally?) What does it mean to carry on a dead brother's name? Also, when a man is suspected of having slept with a non-Jewish maidservant or a non-Jewish woman, who is then set free or converts to Judaism (respectively)... He can't marry that woman. What's the rationale and how far does it go? Including when ulterior motives negate the conversion, and when they seem not to.

A study of the divergent opinions of R. Yosi and the sages on the progeny of a non-Jewish maidservant, or of an idolatress. The child apparently inherits the status of the non-Jewish maidservant, regardless of the Jewish paternity. Which means that siblings aren't siblings, on a technical logistic level. But the non-Jewish slaves did have some connection to mitzvot, which makes the exclusionary verses inherently important. But how did this all work out practically?! Also, a new mishnah - with several complicated, and yet fairly clear, yibum cases. Which still pose very puzzling questions.