1)

(a)From the Beraisa's ruling 'ha'Mema'enes Ein Lah Kenas v'Lo Pituy', we can extrapolate - that a Ketanah who did not perform Mi'un does receive Kenas and Pituy, prompting us to declare 'Ha Mani, Rabanan Hi' (meaning the Rabanan of Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, who hold that a Ketanah receives Kenas).

(b)The author of the Beraisa's statement 'Aylonis Ein Lah Lo Kenas v'Lo Pituy', on he other hand - is Rebbi Meir, who holds that a Ketanah does not receive Kenas.

(c)We suggest that Rebbi Meir is also the author of the Reisha, and that with regard to the Din of a Mema'enes, he holds like Rebbi Yehudah - in whose opinion a girl can still make Mi'un even after she becomes a Na'arah (until there is more black than white - meaning that the two hairs have grown long enough to fold back on to the skin). Consequently, the Reisha is not speaking about a Ketanah at all.

(d)We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, specifically disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah, permitting Mi'un only until two hairs grow.

2)

(a)So we try to establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah who we suggest, holds like Rebbi Meir regarding a Ketanah. That too, we reject however - on the basis of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who establishes the Din of the preclusion of a Ketanah from the Din of Kenas like Rebbi Meir (rather than like Rebbi Meir' and Rebbi Yehudah).

(b)So we finally establish the Beraisa - like a third anonymous Tana who holds like Rebbi Meir regarding the Kenas of a Ketanah, but like Rebbi Yehudah regarding the Mi'un of a Na'arah.

(c)Rafram suggests that 'Mema'enes' means 'ha'Re'uyah l'Ma'en' - meaning a Ketanah (even though she did not actually perform Mi'un), in which case the author of the Beraisa will be Rebbi Meir.

(d)Rafram's explanation is unacceptable however - because then the Tana should have said 'Ketanah' (rather than 'ha'Re'uyah l'Ma'en').

3)

(a)Another Beraisa states 'ha'Chereshes, v'ha'Shotah v'ha'Aylonis Yesh Lahen Kenas, v'Yesh Lahen Pituy'. To reconcile this Beraisa with the previous one (which stated 'Aylonis Ein Lah Lo Kenas v'Lo Pituy') - we establish it like the Rabanan, where the former Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir, as we explained earlier.

(b)This answer is really obvious, and we only cited the latter Beraisa as an excuse to point out a discrepancy between its continuation: 'v'Yesh Lahen Ta'anas Besulim' and a third Beraisa, which states 'ha'Chereshes v'ha'Shotah ... Ein Lahen Ta'anas Besulim'. In this list, the Tana includes a Bogeres, who is not subject to Ta'anas Besulim - because her Besulim terminate the moment she becomes a Bogeres (as we will explain shortly).

(c)The fourth case that the latter Tana includes - is a Mukas Etz.

(d)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa concludes 'ha'Suma v'Aylonis Yesh Lahen Ta'anas Besulim. Sumchus quoting Rebbi Meir says - 'Suma Ein Lah Ta'anas Besulim'.

4)

(a)We resolve the discrepancy between the Beraisa which holds 'Chereshes v'Shotah Yesh Lahen Ta'anas Besulim', with the Beraisa which holds ' ... Ein Lahen Ta'anas Besulim' - by establishing the former Beraisa like Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds (in the case of 'mi'she'Erastani Ne'enasti' in the first Perek) 'Lo mi'Pihah Anu Chayim', and the second Beraisa like Raban Gamliel, who says that she is believed to say that she was raped after her betrothal.

(b)Raban Gamliel will believe that the girl was raped after the betrothal, even though she did not say anything - on the basis of the Pasuk in Mishlei "P'sach Picha l'Ilem", prompting Beis Din to present logical claims on behalf of those who are unable to do so themselves.

5)

(a)When Rav says that one gives a Bogeres the first night - he means that any blood that she sees on the first night of her marriage is considered Dam Besulim.

(b)According to Rav, when the Tana of the Beraisa says ' ... v'ha'Bogeres Ein Lahen Ta'anas Besulim' - he means that there is no Ta'anah of Pesach Pasu'ach (because the opening of a Bogeres is no longer closed).

(c)We believe the man when he claims 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi', even though there is no way he can prove it - on the grounds of a Chazakah that a person will not take the trouble of arranging a wedding with a Se'udah, only to negate it next morning with a trumped-up claim of not finding her a Besulah.

6)

(a)Sumchus quoting Rebbi Meir says that there is no Ta'anas Besulim with regard to a blind girl - because he must expect her to have lost her Besulim when she knocked herself on the ground without realizing it.

(b)Other girls might suffer the same mishap - but they would have seen blood as a result, and their mother would have informed them that they are no longer Besulos. Consequently, any girl who failed to inform her Chasan of this, will lose her Kesuvah for having tricked him. A blind girl, on the other hand, does not see the blood, so she does not go and show her mother.

7)

(a)We already explained that when the Beraisa on the previous Amud stated that a woman who leaves her husband because of a 'Shem Ra' is not eligible to receive Kenas or Pituy, it is referring to a case where the husband did not find Besulim. The problem with this is - why it is not obvious, seeing as she is Chayav Sekilah.

(b)Rav Sheshes therefore explains that Ta'anas Besulim means (not does that she left her husband because he did not find her a Besulah, but) - that she left him due to a rumor that she had committed adultery in her youth.

(c)Rav Papa extrapolates from the Beraisa - that a document which rumor has it, was forged - cannot be used to claim with.

8)

(a)We reject the above explanation of the Beraisa on the basis of a statement by Rava - who said that unsubstantiated rumors of this nature must be ignored.

(b)So we finally explain 'Shem Ra' in the Beraisa - with reference to a case where witnesses testified to the fact that the woman accosted them, and we assume that, even though they turned her down, others are always available to accede to her request.

(c)We still retain Rav Papa's comparison of a document which was disqualified in a similar way to the woman. We nevertheless try to differentiate between the two however - on the grounds that, whereas there may well be plenty of people around with loose morals, how can one assume that the 'creditor' found someone to forge someone else's signature.

(d)In fact, the same fear that invalidates the woman invalidates the document - because, failing to find others to forge the witnesses' signature, we are afraid that the 'creditor' will have taken the trouble to study the trade himself.

9)

(a)The Mishnah precludes a convert, a redeemed captive and a freed slave-girl from Kenas - because, once they reach the age of Bi'ah, they have a Chazakah of having had relations with a man, and are presumed therefore to have lost their Besulim.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah disagrees in the case of a captive - who, he maintains, retains her chastity.

(c)Someone who rapes his daughter or granddaughter, his wife's daughter or granddaughter - are all exempt from paying Kenas, because they are Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim.

(d)We learn this from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with two men who are fighting and one of them his a pregnant woman) "Im Lo Yiheyeh Ason, Anosh Ye'anesh" - implying that if he killed the woman, he is Patur from paying.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan equates Rebbi Dosa with Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah. Rebbi Dosa said that a bas Kohen who was captured - may eat Terumah, because what did the Arab captor do other than play around with her!

(b)Rabah however, disagrees. In his opinion ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah's ruling may well be confined to the case of a rapist having to pay Kenas to a captive - because he penalizes him for his misdeed, but might not necessarily extend his ruling to a captive eating Terumah (like Rebbi Dosa).

2. ... Rebbi Dosa's ruling of a captive eating Terumah - may well be confined to Terumah (which nowadays is only d'Rabanan anyway - and 'Sfeika d'Rabanan, l'Kula'). He may not necessarily agree with Rebbi Yehudah however, who speaks about claiming Kenas. There he may well agree with the Rabanan who declare her Tamei, rather than allow her to extract money when in doubt.

(c)Abaye ascribes Rebbi Yehudah's lenient view regarding a captive receiving Kenas to the Sevara 'she'Lo Yehei Chotei Niskar' (as we just explained). When, in another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah says that even if the girl was ten when she was set free from captivity, she retains her Kedushah and her Kesuvah remains two hundred Zuz - that is because otherwise, people will presume that she was really raped, and nobody will want to marry her.

(d)According to the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Dosa - she is permitted to eat Terumah as long as she is the one who informs us that she was captured (because of the principle 'ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir'); otherwise not.

11)

(a)The Beraisa says that someone who redeems a girl who was captured - is permitted to marry her.

(b)The problem with the next statement 'Me'id Bah, Lo Yisa'enah' - is based on the assumption that it is a continuation of the previous statement, in which case the question arises why the fact that he also testified that she was Tahor, should forbid him to marry her?

(c)So we interpret the Beraisa to mean that, if he redeemed her, as well as testifying that she was Tahor, he may marry her, but if he testified without redeeming her, he may not.

(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah - either way, he is not permitted to marry her.

12)

(a)In order to reconcile Rebbi Yehudah's statement here with his previous statement (that a captive girl retains her chastity) we amend it to read - 'Bein Kach, u'Vein Kach, Yisa'enah'.

(b)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua explains that Rebbi Yehudah said what he said according to the Rabanan's opinion - meaning, that as far as he was concerned, either way, the witness was permitted to marry her; only according to their view (that she was probably raped), she ought to be forbidden to marry him whether he redeemed her or not ('Bein Kach, u'Vein Kach, Lo Yisa'enah').

(c)To which the Rabanan replied that ...

1. ... if he redeemed her, they relied on the Chazakah that a man would not spend so much money unless he was certain that the captive really remained Tahor; whereas ...

2. ... if he did not, they conceded - that maybe he only testified because he took a fancy to her.