1)

(a)Should a man who discovers that his wife is not a Besulah claim that she had relations with a man before the betrothal, Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer again maintain that she is believed, whilst Rebbi Yehoshua says she is not. The girl claims - that she is a Mukas Etz.

(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan, the girl is claiming two hundred Zuz, and the man wants to give her one hundred. Whereas Rebbi Elazar maintains - that she claims a hundred, and he wants to give her nothing.

(c)With regard ...

1. ... to her claim, Rebbi Yochanan holds two hundred Zuz - because, in his opinion, the Tana of our Mishnah holds like Rebbi Meir, that a Mukas Etz is entitled to two hundred Zuz, whether her husband knew about it or not; whereas according to Rebbi Elazar, it is one hundred - because in his opinion, the Tana holds like the Rabanan, that in either case, she only receives a Manah.

2. ... to her husband's response, Rebbi Yochanan holds one hundred Zuz - because he holds 'Kansah b'Chezkas Besulah, v'Nimtza'as Beulah, Yesh lah Manah'; whereas Rebbi Elazar holds 'Kansah b'Chezkas Besulah, v'Nimtza'as Beulah, Ein lah Klum'.

(d)It is obvious that Rebbi Elazar disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of the Machlokes, to avoid establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir (who holds that a Mukas Etz always receives two hundred Zuz). Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rebbi Elazar's explanation - because he holds 'Kansah b'Chezkas Besulah v'Nimtzes Beulah, Yesh Lah Masayim' (the starting point of their Machlokes), in which case the Tana of our Mishnah cannot possibly be the Rabanan. Because seeing as he claims that she is due to receive a Manah, if a Mukas Etz would also receive a Manah, like the Rabanan, then what would there bone of contention be?

2)

(a)According to Rebbi Elazar, we need the Mishnah of 'mi'she'Erastani Ne'enasti', where the Tana inserts 'v'Hayah Mikchi Mekach Ta'us', to preclude from Rav Chiya bar Avin, who maintains that 'Kansah b'Chezkas Besulah ... , Yesh Lah Manah'. And we need the Mishnah of 'Mukas Etz Ani' to preclude from Rami bar Chama - who holds that Mukas Etz of which the husband was not aware is not entitled to anything.

(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan however, who concurs with Rav Chiya bar Avin, both Mishnahs seem to be telling us the same thing. In fact, we need the Mishnah of ...

1. ... 'mi'she'Erastani Ne'enasti' - to demonstrate the extent of Rebbi Yehoshua, who does not believe her even when she has a 'Migo'.

2. ... 'Mukas Etz Ani' - to demonstrate the extent of Raban Gamliel, who believes her even when she does not.

3)

(a)In our Mishnah, the same Tana'im argue with regard to Pesul Kehunah, if they saw an unmarried woman 'talking' to a man. According to Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, we believe her when she claims that the man is a Kohen. According to Rebbi Yehoshua - 'we do not live by her mouth', and she has a Chezkas Be'ulah to a Nasin and Mamzer.

(b)Their second Machlokes in this Mishnah - concerns an unmarried woman who is pregnant, adding her daughter's status to their Machlokes.

(c)According to Ze'iri, 'talking' means secluding herself with him - Rav Asi explains it to mean intimacy.

4)

(a)We justify the Tana's Lashon 'talking' according to Rav Asi, from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Achlah u'Machsah Pihah, v'Amrah Lo Pa'alti Avon" - from which we learn that the Torah speaks modestly in these matters, substituting 'Achilah' for 'Bi'ah'.

(b)According to Rav Asi, who interprets 'talking' as intimacy, the Tana needs to add the second case in the Mishnah ('Hayesah Me'uberes') - to teach us that even her daughter is permitted to marry a Kohen, too.

(c)According to Rav Asi - it is impossible to interpret the Mishnah according to those who hold that even if she is permitted, her daughter is not. So Rav Asi must hold like those who say that the daughter is permitted too (This Machlokes will be discussed later).

(d)We just explained that according to Ze'iri, 'talking with a man' means being secluded with him. This does not necessarily mean that Rav, who says 'Malkin al ha'Yichud v'Ein Osrin al ha'Yichud', rules like Raban Gamliel (seeing as, according to Rebbi Yehoshua, she is not believed) - because it is only regarding Yuchsin that Rebbi Yehoshua is strict, due to 'Ma'alah Asu b'Yuchsin' (Chazal were particularly stringent with regard to the marriage of Kohanim), but not in other regards.

5)

(a)The Beraisa cites the same Machlokes Tana'im in a case when a woman was seen entering 'le'Seiser O l'Churvah'. 'Seiser' implies Yichud (seclusion), with reference to any discreet location - whereas a 'Churvah' is a location that is specifically designated for intimacy.

(b)This poses a Kashya on Rav Asi (who interprets 'talking' as intimacy) - because, if they were seen being intimate, what difference does the location make?! So why does the Tana see fit to mention both locations?!

(c)We reject the suggestion that they are both one and the same case (i.e. 'le'Seiser d'Churva') - because the Tana said 'le'Seiser O l'Churvah' (which one cannot simply discard, like Rava argued earlier with regard to the word 'Lo').

(d)According to Rav Asi, we ultimately explain 'Seiser' to refer to a town ruin, and 'Churvah', to a ruin out of town. The Tana finds it necessary to mention ...

1. ... Churvah - to teach us that even there, Raban Gamliel disagrees with Rebbi Yehoshua and holds that she is believed.

2. ... Seiser - to teach us that even there, Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees with Raban Gamliel and holds that she is not.

6)

(a)) We query Rav Asi from a Tosefta, which elaborates on the Machlokes between Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua. When Rebbi Yehoshua asked them whether they did not agree that a woman on whom witnesses testified that she was captured, is not believed to say that she had relations with a Kasher Jew, they replied 'Aval'- which means 'Yes' (it is true [like in the Pasuk in Vayeira "Aval Sarah Ishtecha"}).

(b)When Rebbi Yehoshua ...

1. ... then asked them to explain the difference between that case and our case (and she ought not to be believed in our case either), they replied - that whereas in that case there are witnesses that she was captured, in our case there are not.

2. ... pointed out that here too, there are witnesses in the form of her pregnancy, they replied - that the majority of Nochrim are promiscuous (which will be explained shortly) ...

(c)... to which he replied - that in our case, 'there is no guarantee when it comes to Arayos' (Ibid.).

(d)The Tana finally comments - that, according to Raban Gamliel, it is only regarding woman herself that the woman is believed, but that her daughter is a Shesuki.

7)

(a)When the Rabanan replied to Rebbi Yehoshua that whereas in the case of Shevuyah there are witnesses that she was captured, in our case there are not, what they really mean to say is - that Rebbi Yehoshua's initial explanation answered the case of 'Me'uberes', but what did he have to say about the case of 'Medaberes'?!

(b)When Rebbi Yehoshua replied that here too, there are witnesses in the form of her pregnancy, he meant - that 'Medaberes' is synonymous with 'Shevuyah'.

(c)And when they pointed out that Shevuyah is different, seeing as the majority of Nochrim are promiscuous (she was probably intimate), he countered - that in our case too, seeing as she secluded with a man, there can be no guarantee that she was not intimate here as well.

(d)The Beraisa now poses a Kashya on Rav Asi (which he cannot answer [Tiyuvta]) - in that it clearly refers to where she was secluded with a man, and not just to where she was intimate with him.

8)

(a)The fact that Rebbi Yehoshua does not differentiate between 'Medaberes' and 'Shevuyah' on the grounds that in the former, most people are permitted, whereas in the latter, most people are forbidden, supports Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who says - that those who permit the woman to marry a Kohen, permit her even when the majority of people are Pasul to her; whereas those who forbid her, do so even when the majority are Kasher.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan maintains that whoever permits the woman to marry a Kohen, also permits her daughter to do so; whereas according to Rebbi Elazar - the daughter is forbidden.

(c)The reason for this, explains Rabah is - because the mother's Chezkas Kashrus does not extend to her daughter.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan explains the Beraisa, which declares the daughter of a woman whom one believes, to be a Shesuki, to mean 'Shesuki v'Kasher' - meaning that, assuming the child to have been a girl, then she is permitted to marry a Kohen. If however, it was a boy, then although his future daughter and widowed wife will be permitted to marry Kohanim, he himself, is invalidated from serving as a Kohen.

(b)We have a precedent for 'Shesuki v'Kasher' in a ruling of Shmuel (that we also cited in Yevamos) - regarding a group of ten Kohanim, one of whom separated from the group and was intimate with a woman, a subsequent child that the woman bears is a Shesuki and is Kasher.

(c)'Shesuki' there cannot mean 'Meshaskin Oso mi'Nichsei Aviv' - because we do not know who his father is in the first place.

(d)We learn from the Pasuk in Pinchas "v'Hayesah Lo u'le'Zar'o Acharav" - that a Kohen must know who his father is in order to be Kasher to eat Terumah and to serve in the Beis Hamikdash.