1)

(a)Rav Acha bar Yakov Amar Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Rabah, who said that - 'ha'Mekadesh al Tenai u'Ba'al, Divrei ha'Kol Einah Tzerichah Heimenu Get' (because by one woman, the man is Bo'el having the original condition in mind).

(b)The Beraisa validates a Chalitzah Muta'as - which Resh Lakish defines as a Chalitzah where they inform the (errant) Yavam that by making Chalitzah, he will acquire the Yevamah.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan rejects Resh Lakish's definition - because, in his opinion, any Chalitzah which either the Yavam or the Yevamah do not perform for the sake of Chalitzah, is not valid.

(d)He therefore defines 'Chalitzah Muta'as' as a Chalitzah which the Yavam performs on the express condition that the Yevamah will give him two hundred Zuz, in which case, the Chalitzah is valid even though the condition is not fulfilled.

2)

(a)Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Ika believes that Rebbi Yochanan's definition of Chalitzah Muta'as clashed with the statement of Rav Acha bar Yakov Amar Rebbi Yochanan ('ha'Mekadesh al Tenai u'Ba'al Divrei ha'Kol Einah Tzerichah Heimenu Get') - because the statement implies that even an act (Bi'ah) does not dispense with the condition, whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan's definition of Chakitzah Muta'as, it seems that it (the Chalitzah) does.

(b)Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Ika - was the son of Rav Acha bar Yakov's sister.

(c)Rav Acha bar Yakov dismissed his nephew's Kashya. He pointed out that Chalitzah Muta'as is valid, not because the Bi'ah dispenses with the condition, but because any condition by Chalitzah is null and void, due to the fact that it is not similar to the condition made my Moshe with the Bnei Gad and the Bnei Reuven (the source for all Dinim of Tenai), inasmuch as whereas the distribution of Eretz Yisrael could be carried out through a Shaliach, Chalitzah.

(d)And the fact that a condition is valid in connection with Kidushei Bi'ah (as we learned above), despite the fact that it cannot be performed through a Shaliach is no problem, he says - because the Torah compares all three forms of Kidushin ("v'Hayesah l'Ish Acher"). Consequently, whatever applies to Kidushei Kesef and Shtar (which can be performed through a Shaliach), will apply to Kidushei Bi'ah as well.

3)

(a)Ula Amar Rebbi Elazar rules that 'ha'Mekadesh b'Milveh u'Ba'al', al Tenai u'Ba'al, b'Pachos mi'Shaveh Perutah u'Ba'al' requires a Get. The case of ...

1. ... 'ha'Mekadesh b'Milveh' is - where a man betroths a woman by foregoing what she owes him. She is not betrothed - because the borrowed money belongs to the woman (to spend), and Kidushin must be performed with money belonging to the man)

2. ... 'al Tenai' is - where he betroths her on condition that she has no Nedarim, and he subsequently discovers that she has.

(b)The woman nevertheless requires a Get - because, based on the assumption that 'Ein Adam Oseh Be'ilaso Be'ilas Zenus' (see Tosfos DH 'Divrei' and Maharam Shif), the man betroths her afresh when they are intimate.

(c)Rav Yosef bar Aba Amar Rebbi Menachem Amar Rebbi Ami concedes - the last of these, but argues in the other two cases ...

(d)... because he holds that it is only by 'ha'Mekadesh b'Pachos mi'Shaveh Perutah', where everybody knows that the Kidushin is invalid, that one is certainly Bo'el for the sake of Kidushin, but not in the first two cases, where people tend to believe that the Kidushin is valid, either because the man believes the woman when she says that he has no Nedarim, or because they do not know that 'ha'Mekadesh b'Milveh' is not valid. Consequently, they perform Bi'ah with the original Kidushin in mind.

4)

(a)Rav Kahana Amar Ula too, holds that 'ha'Mekadesh al Tenai u'Ba'al, Tzerichah Mimenu Get'. This does not conform with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel however - who Darshened in the name of Rebbi Yishmael from the Pasuk "v'Hi Lo Nispasah (Asurah)" - 'Ha Nispasah, Muteres', to teach us that there is another case of a woman who was not taken by force, yet she is permitted. This refers to a case of a woman who was married with Kidushei Ta'us (e.g. 'Kidshah al Tenai'), who may perform Mi'un even if she is grown-up and has a son from him. Consequently, even if she were to commit adultery with another man deliberately, she would be permitted to return to her first husband and marry him.

(b)When such a case once came before the Chachamim - they were not able to take her from the first husband without a Get.

(c)Rav Kahana would have ruled - that a. the woman requires a Get from the first husband, and b. she is therefore forbidden to return to him.

5)

(a)The reason one Beraisa gives to explain why, if the woman goes to a Chacham after her betrothal, and has her Neder nullified, the betrothal becomes valid, whereas if she goes to a doctor and has her blemish cured, it does not - because the Neder is uprooted retroactively, whereas the cure is not.

(b)A second Beraisa maintains - that, either way, the woman is not betrothed.

(c)Rabah resolves the apparent discrepancy by establishing the first Beraisa like Rebbi Meir, who holds - that a husband does not object to his wife going to Beis-Din and having her Neder nullified; and the second one, like Rebbi Elazar - who holds that he does.

(d)And we support his from a Mishnah in Gitin, which discusses taking back a wife whom one divorced because she was prone to make Nedarim or because of a bad name. The Tana Kama forbids it, some say in order not to be lax in Arayos or Nedarim. Others say - because of 'Kilkul' (in case she marries someone else, and then, after her first husband discovers that she has nullified her Neder or the bad name turns out to have been unjustified, he will negate her Get on the grounds that, had he known that this would happen, he would not have divorced her (with the result that the marriage to the second man is invalid retroactively and her children from him are Mamzerim).

6)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah restricts the prohibition to a Neder which was known to the public - at least ten people, which cannot be annulled.

(b)The reason for the prohibition, according to him is - to teach the people not to treat Nedarim so lightly (in keeping perhaps, with his opinion in Chulin, 2a. that not only should a person not make Nedarim and break them, but that he should avoid making Nedarim altogether).

7)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir, it depends on whether the Neder requires a Chacham to annul it (because the husband is not able to do so because it is neither to do with intimacy nor does it cause her anguish) or not.

(b)R. Meir holds - that the reason for the prohibition is because of Kilkul (as we just explained), and he could therefore have said that, had he known that Beis Din are able to annul her vows he would not have divorced her, since she gone have gone applied to the Beis Din to have them annulled.

(c)He is however, permitted to take her back there where he was able to annul her vows - because then, had he wanted to annul her Nedarim, he ought to have nullified them himself.

8)

(a)Rebbi Elazar disagrees with Rebbi Meir's opinion. He is not worried about Kilkul in a case where the Nedarim require a Chacham to annul his wife's vows - because he holds that a man does not want his wife to be degraded, by going to Beis-Din to have her Nedarim rescinded.

(b)Rebbi Elazar therefore holds - that quite to the contrary, it is the category of Neder that he can annul himself that we are worried about, because that is where the husband, claiming that he was not aware of the fact that he was able to nullify it, may nullify the Get; but not those that require Beis-Din, because a man does not want his wife to be degraded by going to Beis-Din. In fact, they only decreed the latter on account of the former.