1)

(a)After Rebbi Eliezer's death, Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah went in to query his rulings. The fourth sage was Rebbi Akiva.

(b)What all five queries had in common was that they ultimately boil down to the fact that it was not 'Kerisus'.

(c)Rebbi Tarfon queried Rebbi Eliezer who ruled that, in the case of 'Harei At Muteres l'Chol Adam Ela li'Ploni', she was permitted to everyone except for Ploni. The problem Rebbi Tarfon had with this was that if as Rebbi Eliezer ascertains, the Get is valid and Ploni remains forbidden, then assuming that she married his brother who died without children, her husband will have nullified the Mitzvah of Yibum.

(d)Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili asked that we never find a woman who is permitted to one person and forbidden to someone else. Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah asked from the very word "K'risus" which implies that their marriage is completely cut (and not that she is still forbidden to marry someone because of it).

2)

(a)The most dramatic objection to Rebbi Eliezer's ruling comes from Rebbi Akiva, who asked from a case where the woman remarried, her second husband died and she then went and married Ploni thereby negating the Get retroactively, rendering any children that she had from her second husband, Mamzerim. And that, asks Rebbi Akiva, is surely not what one would call 'Kerisus'.

(b)In his second explanation, Rebbi Akiva Darshens the following 'Kal va'Chomer' to (negate the Get and) forbid the woman on the world, assuming that Ploni is a Kohen. If when her husband dies, she is forbidden to 'Ploni (because she is a Gerushah, which is only a Lav) then she ought certainly to be forbidden to the rest of the world (vis-a-vis whom she still bears the title 'Eshes Ish', which carries with it the death penalty).

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua objected to the above meeting because one cannot 'knock out the a lion after his death'.

3)

(a)Rava has a Pircha (a knockout) on all the Tana's Kashyos, except for that of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.

(b)He has the support of a Beraisa whose author is Rebbi Yosi.

4)

(a)Rebbi Tarfon queries Rebbi Eliezer from the fact that, should the woman marry Ploni's brother and he dies without children, her husband will have uprooted the Mitzvah of Yibum. We ...

1. ... amend this statement because he cannot be accused of having uprooted it.

2. ... refute the suggestion to amend it from 'Oker Davar min ha'Torah' to 'Masneh La'akor Davar min ha'Torah' because he cannot even be accused of doing that, since he did not ask his ex-wife to marry Ploni's brother.

(b)`The final version of Rebbi Tarfon's Pircha is 'Nimtza Gorem La'akor Davar min ha'Torah'.

(c)Rava refutes Rebbi Tarfon's proof based on the precedent of the case where someone marries his brother's daughter, say, who also causes the Mitzvah of Yibum to become nullified (since the woman will not be permitted to perform Yibum with her father), yet no-one suggests that this ought to be prohibited.

(d)Rebbi Tarfon's query must be from 'Al-Menas' because by 'Chutz', once the woman remarries and breaks completely with the ties of her first marriage, Rebbi Eliezer concedes that Ploni becomes permitted.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili bases his Kashya on the fact that nowhere do we find the concept of someone/something being forbidden to one person and permitted to another. Rava asks on this that every married woman is forbidden to the world and permitted to her husband.

(b)He cannot ask his Pircha from...

1. ... Terumah and Kodshei Kodashim, that are forbidden to a Yisrael but permitted to a Kohen because that has nothing to do with Nashim.

2. ... the Arayos, who are forbidden to their relatives but permitted to everyone else because that has nothing to do with marriage.

(c)Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili's query must be from 'Chutz' because as far as 'Al-Menas' is concerned, Rebbi Eliezer concedes that she would be permitted to Ploni without marriage (seeing as the condition was 'Al-Menas she'Lo Tinas'i li'Ploni').

6)

(a)Rebbi Akiva bases his query on the fact that the woman might marry the man to whom she is forbidden, after becoming divorced or widowed from her second husband, thereby breaking her condition ... . Rava's Pircha on Rebbi Akiva is that in that case, we ought to forbid every Tenai by Gitin, in case one of them breaks the condition after she is already remarried with children.

(b)Rebbi Akiva's query must be from 'Al-Menas' because by Chutz, once the woman remarries and breaks completely with the ties of her first marriage, Rebbi Eliezer concedes that Ploni becomes permitted (as we explained earlier).

(c)In the second Lashon, he asks from a case where the forbidden man was a Kohen from a 'Kal va'Chomer'. There, his query must be from 'Chutz' because, by 'Al-Menas', the forbidden man is permitted to her (as we just explained).

(d)Rebbi Akiva asks once from 'Al-Menas' and once from 'Chutz' because having heard that according to some, Rebbi Eliezer argues with the Rabanan by 'Chutz', and according to others, by 'Al-Menas', he asked first on one, and then on the other, so that 'mi'Mah-Nafshach', Rebbi Eliezer will be proved wrong.

7)

(a)Rava's Pircha on Rebbi Akiva's second explanation, which is based on a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the title 'Gerushah' on to the title 'Eshes Ish' is that one cannot learn a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Kohanim who have extra Mitzvos (as we asked earlier).

(b)The Kashya Rava that, when all's said and done, Rebbi Eliezer's very ruling is based on the Pasuk ''ve'Ishah Gerushah me'Ishah", as Rebbi Yochanan explained above (proving that Rebbi Eliezer does not consider this a Kashya), we answer by establishing Rava like Rebbi Yanai who, citing a certain sage, learns Rebbi Eliezer's ruling from the Pasuk "v'Hayesah l'Ish Acher" (and not from the Pasuk by Kohanim at all).

8)

(a)Despite the fact that Rebbi Yehoshua himself has a Pircha on Rebbi Eliezer, he declared 'Ein Meshivin Es ha'Ari l'Achar Misah' because what he meant to say was, that one can ask as many Kashyos as one likes, but one cannot prove a person wrong after his death (seeing as one has no way of knowing that he would not have answered them).

(b)Based on the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah ... v'Yatz'ah v'Hayesah l'Ish Acher" Rebbi Yehoshua asked on Rebbi Eliezer from the Torah's comparison of the divorce after the second marriage to the divorce after the first (which severed her connections with her husband completely).

(c)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar too, asked on Rebbi Eliezer. When he said 'Heichan Matzinu she'Zeh Oser v'Zeh Matir', he meant to ask that we never find one person permitting what someone else forbade (like we do according to Rebbi Eliezer, according to whom, the death or divorce of the second husband permits Ploni, even though it was the husband who issued the prohibition).

(d)We refute the Kashya on Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar from ...

1. ... a Yevamah, whose Yavam permits what her husband forbade on the grounds that it is really the Yavam himself who prohibits the Yevamah, and not her husband's death (which actually permits her).

2. ... a Chacham, who permits what the Noder forbade based on Rebbi Yochanan, who explained that it is really the Noder himself who causes the Neder to be rescinded (through his Charatah).

3. ... a husband, who annuls the Neder that his wife declared based on Rebbi Pinchas quoting Rava, who said that when a woman declares a Neder, she does so on the understanding that, if her husband wishes, he will annuil it.

9)

(a)We learned above that Rebbi ben Azaryah learns from "Kerisus" that the divorce must break the tie between husband and wife completely. The Rabanan (who do not query Rebbi Eliezer from there) learn from "Kerisus" that any Tenai that binds the woman forever (such as 'Al-Menas she'Lo Tishti Yayin l'Olam'), invalidates the Get.

(b)Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah's source for this Halachah is the superfluous (dual) expression "Kares K'risus".

(c)The Rabanan do not consider "Kares Kerisus" superfluous.

10)

(a)Rava initially says that if a man gives his wife a Get on condition that she does not drink wine for ...

1. ... as long as he lives the Get is invalid (because it is not considered 'Kerisus').

2. ... as long as so-and-so lives the Get is valid.

(b)We object to this distinction on the grounds that, just as it is possible for the other man to die before his wife (in which case it cannot be described as not being 'Kerisus'), so too, is it possible for him to die before his wife, so why the difference?

(c)The distinction that Rava therefore made was between forbidding his wife to drink wine for as long as she lives (which is not 'Kerisus') on the one hand, and forbidding her to drink wine for as long as he or so-and-so lives (which is).

11)

(a)Rava asked Rav Nachman whether the Get will be valid if the man gives it to his wife stipulating that today she will not be his wife, but tomorrow she will be his wife again. This might ...

1. ... not be a valid Tenai even according to Rebbi Eliezer who permits Shiyur because there at least, her husband permitted her to the rest of the world forever, whereas here there is no aspect of forever.

2. ... be a valid Tenai even according to the Rabanan who do not because here at least, the break with her today is total (which is not the case there).

(b)Rava himself concludes like the second side of the She'eilah, both according to Rebbi Eliezer and according to the Rabanan (Keivan d'Paskah Paskah).

(c)Tomorrow she will remain divorced (because there is nothing to reunite them automatically).