Question: According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah who holds that the case is when she was already married to a second person, how can we understand Rashi's explanation that there is a suspicion of conspiracy? Being that she married the second person, the first husband cannot marry her anyway and the law is that she must be divorced from both! (Note: Why would they make a conspiracy that would not work?)

Answer: Sometimes a husband does not realize that it will be forbidden to him to remarry his wife (who already married again), and he therefore will try to do this conspiracy.

Explanation: This was even if this would be through witnesses (who would say that the rumor was incorrect).

Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Basra (32a) and Kesuvos (26b) states that we allow one witness to establish someone as a Kohen, and it takes away any rumors. (Note: Why, then, wouldn't we proclaim that this rumor is false as two witnesses have testified to that effect?)

Answer#1: In Bava Basra (ibid.) the reason we stop the rumor is because otherwise he will be forbidden from Terumah forever. However, if she should become forbidden to her husband because she has the status of a divorcee (according to the rumor), we will not actively stop the rumor.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the Gemara in Bava Basra (ibid.) is different as it is discussing Terumah d'Rabbanan. There is no suspicion on Beis Din for stopping such a rumor (people will not say Beis Din is supporting people who transgress as it is a question of a Rabbinic sin).

Implied Question: In Kesuvos (36b), Rebbi Yochanan says that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Dosa say the same thing. In our Gemara, Rebbi Yehudah (b'Rebbi Ilai, who is generally known just as Rebbi Yehudah) himself says, "Come and see that unlike the earlier generations etc." (Note: If Rebbi Yehudah held the same way as Rebbi Dosa, why would he lament that the later generations are so different than the earlier generations?)

Answer#1: He was lamenting his own position on the matter as well.

Answer#2: Alternatively, he did not hold exactly like Rebbi Dosa, as he was not as lenient as him. In many places the statement, "(They hold) the same thing" is said, even though the positions are not exactly the same positions.

Explanation: This is being inclusive and saying that this even regarding Arabs who are steeped in promiscuity. Even though the Gemara in Kidushin (49b) states that ten Kav of promiscuity came down to the world, and the Arabs took nine and one was given to the rest of the world, this still does not make us suspect that they actually had relations with a captive.

Explanation#1: This term means a gate, as is evident from the Gemara in Berachos (28a), "Teruku Gali" -- "close the gate (i.e. door)."

Explanation#2: The Aruch explains that "Traksimon" means a type of vegetable. In the Mishnayos we see a vegetable called Traksimon refers to a way that they would bring a vegetable in that would make it exempt from having to take Ma'aser. (Note: The Aruch in Berachos (35b) says that a "Traksima" was a vegetable, and a "Traksimon" was a path to take vegetables (which would make them exempt from Terumos and Ma'aseros). He also explains that although the vegetable "Traksima" does not appear in the Mishnah, a Traksima means Olshin, a type of vegetable that does appear in the Mishnayos.)

Question#1: This does not seem correct, as if so it should have said, "Yerek" -- "vegetable" (not "Traksimon").

Question#2: Additionally, it is unclear if in the Mishnayos taking vegetables through a Traksimon will exempt them from Ma'aseros even mid'Rabbanan. (Note: The Maharam Shif explains that other vegetables taken these ways are still obligated to have Ma'aseros taken mid'Rabbanan. It therefore remains to be seen, Tosfos asks, if and why these particular vegetables are exempt even mid'Rabbanan.)

Explanation: This is specifically referring to temporary eating. However, permanent eating is forbidden, as Rebbi Oshiya states in Pesachim (9a) that a person can use trickery with his produce and bring it in with its straw in order that his animal may eat and it is exempt from Ma'aser.

The eating of an animal is temporary eating, as the Mishnah states in Pei'ah (1:6) we feed to a domesticated animal, wild animal, and bird until it is gathered in a pile in the silo.

Question: How can Rebbi Yanai argue on him? Many Tannaim hold that a yard creates a status of permanent eating. This is like the following Gemara in Nidah (47b). The Gemara says, what is a yard that creates a permanent status for Ma'aser? Rebbi Yishmael says if the vessels are guarded there etc. Similarly, the Gemara in Beitzah (35a) says, "If he was eating a cluster of grapes and entered from the garden into the yard, Rebbi Eliezer says he may finish eating, while Rebbi Yehoshua says he may not finish eating (as the yard makes his eating permanent).

Answer: Rebbi Yanai holds that all of this is only a Rabbinic stringency. However, according to Torah law, it would have to actually "see the house" to be considered obligated in Ma'aseros.

Implied Question: However, one cannot answer that a yard establishes a status of permanent eating for Ma'aser if the produce comes from the yard into the house. However, if the produce just enters the yard, it is not considered permanent even in Rabbinic law. (Note: Why can't we give this answer?)

Answer#1: This is because the case of the person eating the cluster of grapes implies that the yard immediately creates a permanent status even without it entering the house. This is also implied by many Mishnayos.

Answer#2: Rabeinu Elchanan also asks (i.e. proves that (c) is an incorrect answer) from the Gemara in Nidah (47b) that finishes as follows. Rebbi Yehudah says that if there are two yards, one inside the other, the inner one is liable and the outer one is exempt. If he would have to end up bringing into the house anyway, this law is obvious! The produce will never be obligated to have Ma'aseros taken until it gets in to the inner yard, as it cannot get from the outer yard to the house (without going through the inner yard).

Implied Question: In Yevamos (107a), Beis Shamai says that only Arusos can perform Miun, not Nesuos. Rav Yosef and Rabah explained that Beis Shamai understands that being that a person does not want his marital relations to be considered promiscuity, we cannot allow married minor girls to perform Miun. The husbands did not marry them so that their marriage will ended up being null and void. (Note: This turns the marital relations that they had into promiscuity. How, then, can Beis Shamai here hold that a person does not care if his relations are considered promiscuity? )

Answer: It is possible to say that in Yevamos (ibid.), being that we saw that he gave Kidushin for this minor (i.e. to her brother or mother), he certainly does not want his marital relations to be considered promiscuity. However, in our case where we did not see a Kidushin, we assume that he does not mind to have his relations be considered promiscuity. Beis Hillel holds that a person never wants his relations to be considered promiscuity.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Beis Hillel holds there that even married girls can do Miun. (Note: Why does Beis Hillel allow this if this will turn the husband's relations with this minor into promiscuity?)

Answer: This is because Beis Hillel holds that being that he only had relations with her after doing Kidushin and Nisuin, it is not considered that his relations with her were promiscuous, as stated there. (Note: Being that he did everything he could do according to Halachah, no promiscuity is considered to have taken place.)

Implied Question: This case was not listed with other similar cases listed previously. (Note: Why not?)

Answer: Rabeinu Yosef says that since it says earlier that if the scribe wrote a Get etc., the Tana also wrote the case where he wrote a Get in order to divorce his wife. The Tana then wrote another case of someone who divorced his wife and slept with her in an inn, as that is also an argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, just like the case where he wrote a Get to divorce his wife etc. The Tana then wrote our Mishnah regarding a "bald Get."

Observation: The Gemara later (86a) says that this is according to Rebbi Meir. However, according to the Rabbanan she should get divorced, but the child is kosher (not a Mamzer).