Previous daf

1)

(a) 'Haysah bas Yisrael, Nifselah min ha'Kehunah'. It is indeed obvious that a Zonah is Pasul from Kehunah - the Tana mentions this fact however, because he wants to add 'u'bas Levi min ha'Ma'aser', which is not obvious at all.

(b) We learn in a Beraisa that if a bas Levi is captured or commits an immoral act (e.g. with an Eved or an Akum) - we feed her Ma'aser.

(c) This is not a contradiction to our Mishnah, where she is invalidated from eating Ma'aser - because there, the prohibition takes the form of a K'nas (conforming with the various other penalties contained there).

(d) Despite having already taught us that a bas Levi is forbidden to eat Ma'aser, the Tana nevertheless needs to add that a bas Kohen is forbidden to eat Terumah - because it incorporates even Terumah de'Rabbanan.

(a) It is not necessary for the Tana to inform us that her children do not inherit her Kesubah - because how can her children inherit what she herself is not entitled to receive?

(b) In fact, he is referring to Kesubas B'nin Dichrin - a Takanas Chachamim that in the event of their mother dying before their father, the sons that she bore from him inherit her mother's Kesubah. The reason for this Takanah is to encourage a man to give a generous dowry to his daughters, since he now knows that the money that he gives her will remain with her children and not go over to the children of his son-in-law's from another wife.

(c) The Tana finds it necessary to inform us that her sons from her first husband do not inherit 'Kesubas B'nin Dichrin' - because we would otherwise have thought that Chazal penalized *her*, but not her *children*.

(a) According to Rav Huna, each later Tana in our Mishnah agrees with the Tana'im that precede him. Rebbi Shimon, who permits even Yibum, concedes to Rebbi Elazar that her husband receives her findings, what she produces and that he may nullify her vows, but Rebbi Elazar will not concede that she may perform Yibum - because Chazal may not have penalized her monetarily, but they certainly did when it comes to Bi'ah (which is the root of the sin).

(b) And they both agree with Rebbi Yossi, who says that she receives her Kesubah from her first husband, but Rebbi Yossi will not agree with *them* - because it is only in connection with the Kesubah, which heralds her leaving the marriage, that Chazal did not penalize her, but not when it comes to Bi'ah and her findings etc., which the various parties receive whilst she still remains married (a status that we want to change).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that it is the former Tana who agrees with the later ones, but not the reverse. Rebbi Yossi agrees with Rebbi Elazar but not vice-versa - because it is only the findings and what she produces that Chazal *did not decree*, because it concerns what *she* gives to *him*, but when it comes to the Kesubah, that *he* gives to *her*, they *did*.

(d) And they will both agree with Rebbi Shimon, but not vice-versa - because in his opinion, it is only in connection with the Bi'ah of the Yavam, which takes place after her husband's death, that Chazal *did not decree*, but all the other things, that take place in his lifetime, they *did*.

(a) When Rav Huna Amar Rav ruled with regard to the Mishnah ('ve'Im Niseis she'Lo bi'Reshus, Muteres Lachzor Lo') 'Hachi Hilchesa' - Rav Nachman asked him why he did not clearly state that he ruled like Rebbi Shimon (the author of this statement).

(b) Rav Nachman dismisses the suggestion that Rav Huna issued his statement to preclude the possible misconception that he was ruling like Rebbi Shimon's first statement too (permitting even Yibum) on the grounds that - if that is so, he should have said 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon ba'Acharonah'.

(c) Rav Sheishes, on the other hand, accused Rav of having issued this ruling in his sleep - because 'Halachah ... ' implies that someone argues with him. And how can anybody argue with this ruling, seeing as she is a total O'nes.

(a) Rav Sheishes supports his previous statement with a Beraisa which says 'Kol Arayos she'Amru Ein Tz'richos Heimenu Get Chutz mei'Eishes Ish she'Niseis al-pi Beis-Din', from which we can infer 'al-pi Beis-Din de'Ba'i Gita, Ha al-pi Eidim, Lo Ba'i Gita'. So we see that even the Rabbanan agree - that when there are two witnesses, no Get is required, and she is permitted to return to her husband (see Tosfos DH 'al-pi').

(b) He declines to establish the author of the author to be Rebbi Shimon - because according to Rebbi Shimon (he thinks), even if she marries al-pi Beis-Din, no Get is required (as we shall soon see).

(c) Rebbi Shimon says in a Beraisa - 'Asu Beis-Din be'Hora'asan ke'Zadon Ish be'Ishah; al-pi Eidim ke'Shigegas Ish be'Ishah. Idi ve'Idi Lo Ba'i Get'.

(d) We amend this Beraisa to read - 'Asu Beis-Din be'Hora'asan ke'Kavanas Ish be'Ishah *u'ba'i Get*; al-pi Eidim ke'she'Lo be'Kavanas Ish be'Ishah, ve'Lo Ba'i Gita. Consequently, we can establish the previous Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon (thereby refuting Rav Sheishes' proof).

(a) Rav Ashi reinstates the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon like we learned it originally, only not in connection with giving a Get, but in connection with the Isur (though in both cases, she will require a Get, not like Rav Sheishes [as we just explained]). Ravina explains it in connection with bringing a Korban: 'Asu Beis-Din be'Hora'asan ke'Zadon Ish be'Ishah ve'Lo Masya Korban; al-pi Eidim, ke'Shigegas Ish be'Ishah, u'Masya Korban.

(b) Rebbi Shimon exempts her from a Korban in the Reisha - because a Yachid who acted on the ruling of the Beis-Din is Patur from a Korban.

(c) We finally amend the Beraisa to read - 'Kol Arayos she'ba'Torah Ein Tz'richos Heimenu Get Chutz me'Eishes Ish ve'she'Niseis al-pi Beis-Din', proving Rav Huna Amar Rav (as well as Rav Sheishes) wrong.

7)

(a) The Mishnah in Gitin says that if the Sofer wrote a Get with the date of a different kingdom (other than the one where the man and the woman live), or other similar Pesulim, and the woman nevertheless went ahead and married on the basis of that Get - she must leave both men, and all the Chumros listed in our Mishnah apply to her too.

(b) Rome is referred to as Malchus she'Einah Hogenes - because it did not have its own script or its own language (both were taken from Greek and other sources).

(a) We refute Ula's proof from there that we do not absolve the woman even when there is nothing that she could have done about it (like Rav Sheishes maintained) - because in fact, she could have (and should have) read the Get (in front of a Chacham).

(b) And we refute Rav Shimi bar Ashi's proof from the Mishnah in Gitin 'ha'Ko'nes es Yevimto ve'Halchah Tzarasah ve'Niseis, ve'Nimtzeis Zu Aylonis, Teitzei mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh ... ' - because there too, she should have waited (presumably, until her Tzarah turns twenty and it becomes ascertained whether she is an Aylonis or not - though it is unclear why she should need to wait bearing in mind that the majority of women are not Ayloniyos).

(c) The Tzaras Ervah of an Aylonis is not Patur from Yibum - because the Kidushin of an Aylonis turns out to have been a mistake (a Mekach Ta'us), in which case she is no longer a Tzaras Ervah.

(a) First Abaye, and then Rava and Rav Ashi try to bring similar proofs to those of Rav Shimi bar Ashi and Ula respectively. The Mishnah in Gitin says that in the case of a Get where the Sofer ...

1. ... changed the name or the domicile of either the man or the woman - and the woman nevertheless went and got married on the basis of that Get, she must leave both men, and all the Chumros of our Mishnah apply to her.
2. ... got mixed up and gave the Get to the man and the receipt to the woman, which they then exchanged - exactly the same applies.

(b) A Get Mekushar is a special kind of Get whose witnesses sign on the outside of a folded Get with each fold stitched and knotted, one signature per fold. A Get Kerei'ach - is one whose knotted stitches exceed the witnesses.

(c) We dismiss Ravina's Kashya from there to refute Rav Sheishes - on the grounds that she should have read the Get.

(a) Rav Papa wanted to permit a woman who had married on the basis of two witnesses to return to her husband upon his return (like Rav Sheishes). But Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua asked him - from all the Mishnayos in Gitin which we just cited to prove that we do not accept the argument 'What could she have done'?

(b) When Rav Papa pointed out to him that we refuted all those disproofs from Gitin - he retorted that we cannot rely on such forced answers.

(c) When Rav Ashi (who clearly supports the opinion of Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua) said 'u'le'Kala Lo Chaishinan' - he meant that if her husband did not arrive on the scene, but after she remarried, a rumor began to spread that he was alive, we ignore it.

(d) Even though he already taught that one ignores any Kol that begins after the marriage, he needed to repeat it here - because this rumor is substantiated by the fact that she only became permitted after Beis-Din permitted her to do so (creating the impression of a Safek), and we may have thought that the two factors combine to forbid her to remain with the second man.