1)

(a)Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the name of bar Kapara establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah (who requires the condition in writing) and Rebbi Yosi (who does not) 'bi'Techilah', but 'b'Sof', both agree that she cannot be Mochel orally - because she has already acquired the Kesuvah, and what is then required is a document stating that she has already received payment.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan says - that they argue in both cases (both 'bi'Techilah' and 'b'Sof').

(c)If, as Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan explains, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi means 'Techilas Chupah' and 'Sof Bi'ah' - when Rebbi Yochanan states that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi also argue 'b'Sof', he is referring to 'Sof Chupah' (which is equivalent to 'Techilas Bi'ah').

(d)The outcome of this dual explanation - is that Rebbi Yochanan is not arguing with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi at all.

2)

(a)That is how Rav Dimi explained the interchange between Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi when he came from Eretz Yisrael - Ravin however, arrived from Eretz Yisrael with a different interpretation of their interchange.

(b)According to Ravin, Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the name of bar Kapara establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi 'b'Sof', but 'bi'Techilah', both agree that she can be Mochel. Rebbi Yochanan says - that they argue in both cases.

(c)If, as Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan explained, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi meant 'Techilas Chupah' and 'Sof Chupah', then when Rebbi Yochanan refer stated that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi also argue 'bi'Techilah' - he is referring to 'Techilas Bi'ah'.

(d)The pair of Amora'im who argue - are Rav Dimi (who holds that in the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi both agree that, at the end of Bi'ah, she can no longer be Mochel verbally) and Ravin (who maintains that in their opinion, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi agree that at the beginning of Chupah, she can).

3)

(a)Rav Papa commented on Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan's explanation - that if Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan himself had not interpreted Rebbi Yochanan in a way that left him agreeing with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he would have explained Rebbi Yochanan in a way that made him argue with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (that even by Sof Bi'ah they argue as well).

(b)He would have explained the 'bi'Techilah' of Rav Dimi (where Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi do argue) by Techilas Bi'ah, and the 'b'Sof' (where they don't) by Sof Bi'ah; and the 'b'Sof' of Ravin (where Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi do argue) by Sof Chupah, and the 'Techilah' (where they don't) by Techilas Chupah - in which case they would not be arguing.

(c)Rav Papa's Chidush is - that it is preferable to explain that two Amora'im (Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) argue in their own name than that two Amora'im (Rav Dimi and Ravin) argue over what two other Amora'im said.

(d)The advantage of learning like that is - that if two Amora'im argue among themselves, it is always possible that both are right ('Zeh v'Zeh Divrei Elokim Chayim'); whereas if two Amora'im argue over what two other Amora'im said, one of them must be wrong.

4)

(a)Our Mishnah gives a Besulah twelve months to prepare herself for the Chupah - from the time that the Chasan proposes to her.

(b)She needs to prepare - ornaments (of which a Kalah used to wear twenty-four - See Rashi Shemos 31:18).

(c)An Almanah gets only thirty days - because she already has the ornaments from the time of her first marriage.

(d)We give the man the same period of time as we give the woman (twelve months for a Bachur and thirty days for an Almon, see Tosfos Yom Tov) - to prepare for the needs of the wedding-feast and other trivia for the Chupah.

5)

(a)If the time expires and they do not get married - he becomes obligated to feed her, even Terumah if he is a Kohen.

(b)Despite the fact that the Tana is speaking in a case where the Chasan caused the delay, he says 'Higi'a Zman v'Lo Nis'u' (as if the Kalah was the one to have caused it) - to conform with the Reisha, which speaks about the Kalah.

(c)According to Rebbi Tarfon, if her Chasan is a Kohen, he may feed her exclusively Terumah - Rebbi Akiva says half Terumah, half Chulin, so that she will have what to eat when she is Tamei.

(d)According to Rebbi Tarfon - when she is Tamei, she will have to sell the Terumah to Kohanim, and with the proceeds, she will buy Chulin.

6)

(a)The Mishnah - forbids a Yavam to feed his Yevamah Yisraelis Terumah after twelve months ...

(b)... even if she already waited twelve months minus one day before her husband died, and then one day as a Shomeres Yavam, or vice-versa.

(c)The above Din of 'Higi'a Zman v'Lo Nis'u ... ' is the Halachah according to the Mishnah Rishonah. According to the Mishnah Acharonah - a Yisraelis may not eat Terumah until she actually enters the Chupah.

7)

(a)We learn the obligation to give a Besulah twelve months from - Lavan.

(b)Lavan and his mother said to Eliezer "Teshev ha'Na'arah Itanu Yamim O Asor". "Yamim" cannot mean two days - because they continued "O Asor", and a person would not say 'Give me two days, and if not, ten'.

(c)We learn from the Pasuk in Behar (in connection with the redeeming of sold property in a walled city) "Yamim Tiheyeh Ge'ulaso" - that "Yamim" (by Kidushin) means a year, like it does there.

(d)It cannot mean a month (from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha (in connecting with the quails) "ad Chodesh Yamim") - because it is preferable to learn "Yamim" from "Yamim", than from "Chodesh Yamim".

8)

(a)Rebbi Zeira cites a Beraisa regarding postponing the wedding date of a Ketanah until she grows up. In fact - both she and her father have the power to do so.

(b)She can postpone it because she is afraid of Bi'ah - whereas her father can postpone it on the grounds that his daughter might take a dislike to her new husband, and rebel against him, causing him to divorce her, in which case she will return to him until she grows up, when she will require new ornaments. (This is unclear, seeing as she still has the ornaments from her first marriage, as Rashi himself explained in our Mishnah. Why did Rashi not rather explain that she will return to her father's home and, with the stigma of being divorced, will find difficulty in remarrying, and become a burden on her father?).

(c)In keeping with this Beraisa, Rebbi Aba bar Levi rules that one cannot fix a date to marry a Ketanah whilst she is still a Ketanah, but one can fix a date whilst she is still a Ketanah to marry her when she is a Gedolah - although we might have thought that even fixing a wedding-date for later will frighten her, and that one should not do so without her full consent.

(d)In the latter case - the Kidushin too, may only takes place after she becomes a Gedolah.

9)

(a)Rav Huna states that a girl who becomes a Bogeres and is betrothed the following day, has thirty days (like an Almanah) to prepare for her wedding - starting from the day of the betrothal.

(b)The reason for this is - because she will already have prepared her ornaments before she became a Bogeres.

(c)When the Tana of the Beraisa says 'Bagrah, Nosnin Lah Shelosim Yom ki'Tevu'ah' - he means an Almanah whom the Chasan asked to prepared for the marriage.

10)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer rules in a Beraisa that if a Bogeres has already waited twelve months for her wedding - the Chasan may nullify her vows without her father (as if they were already married).

(b)Rav Huna explains 'Bagrah she'Shahasah Shneim-Asar Chodesh' - to mean 'Bagrah O Shahasah Shneim-Asar Chodesh' (seeing as a Bogeres, according to him, never needs to wait twelve months.

(c)We prove Rav Huna wrong from a Beraisa - which specifically gives a Bogeres who became betrothed the following day twelve months to prepare.

(d)A Bogeres is nevertheless different than a Na'arah regarding the waiting period - inasmuch as the twelve months begin from the Erusin and not from the time that her Chasan asks her to prepare for the marriage.

11)

(a)We give a Bogeres thirty days to prepare for her wedding - if twelve months already elapsed from the time that she became a Bogeres until the betrothal.

(b)The Tana makes no distinction between a case where the Chasan who asks the Kalah to prepare for the marriage, or vice-versa - both are given twelve months or thirty days, depending on the above conditions.

12)

(a)Ula learns from the Pasuk "v'Kohen ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo" - that an Arusah (who is betrothed to a Kohen, and) who also falls under the heading of 'Kinyan Kaspo', may eat Terumah.

(b)Chazal issued a decree forbidding her to do so - for fear that she may hand her siblings a cup of Terumah-wine.

(c)And the reason that they permitted her to eat Terumah when the waiting period has expired is - because from that time on, her Chasan feeds her and designates a spot in his house for her to eat.

(d)Chazal did not issue a similar decree forbidding a hired worker who is a Kohen to eat Terumah, in case he feeds his employer's family Terumah - because it is generally the employer who feeds his employees, and not the reverse.

13)

(a)According to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, Chazal's decree forbidding an Arusah to eat Terumah is due to 'Simpon' - (the possibility that she has a blemish which the Chasan will subsequently discover, which will result in him retroactively canceling the betrothal).

(b)She is permitted to eat Terumah immediately after the Chupah however (even before the marriage has been consummated) - because before entering the Chupah, he will have had her examined by her relatives.

(c)An Eved Kena'ani whom a Kohen bought from a Yisrael is permitted to eat Terumah - because there is no Simpon by Avadim. This is because, if the blemishes are visible, he can see them, whereas if they are not, what does a master care about the hidden blemishes of his slave?!

(d)We are not worried that he may be ...

1. ... a thief or a kidnapper - because most Avadim Kena'anim fall under that category, in which case the purchaser ought to have expected it.

2. ... a robber or wanted by the government - because that is generally public knowledge, and the purchaser ought to have known about it.

14)

(a)One of the two basic differences between Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah is when the husband accepted any blemishes that she may have, in which case she will be permitted to eat according to Ula, but not according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah. The other difference is - if the girl's father handed her to the Sheluchim of the husband or if his Sheluchim accompanied the Sheluchim of the latter, where she will be permitted to eat according to Ula, since her siblings are not with her, but not according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, since the possibility of Simpon still exists.