Proof: Here, when he admits, it means only that he says that he had Bi'ah with her. Surely, he did not follow her around [constantly, to ensure] that she not be Mezanah!

Summation of Question: Both according to Rav and Shmuel, he (the child) is forbidden to a Bas Yisrael, for Shmuel says that he is a Shetuki, i.e. he is forbidden to a Bas Yisrael according to all versions in Kidushin (except for the last);

Question #2: And according to the [last] version [that the child is] "Beduki", this is even more difficult! It connotes that even through checking the mother, he is Kosher only according to R. Gamliel, but not according to R. Yehoshua;

Here it says "he admits", [i.e.] so all agree that the child is Kosher!

Answer: Perhaps we can distinguish. There, "Ba" means that he had Bi'ah with her once. Here, "he admits", that the child is from him, i.e. he had Bi'ah with her many times and was always regular with her, like we say "most Bi'os [of a married woman] are with her husband."

Explanation: According to the first version in Yevamos (69b), when she is not suspected of others, and according to the other version, that says even when she is suspected of others, since he admits, we attribute the child to him.

Explanation #1: We can explain that we discuss to forbid her to the Arus. It means as follows:

Firstly, he admits. Therefore, she is not forbidden to him. Further, Rav Yehudah [rules like R. Gamliel].

Suggestion: This means that further, even if he does not admit, [she is permitted because Rav Yehudah...]

Rejection: If he does not admit, obviously she is forbidden to him! Rather, even when we cannot rely on the reason of admission, e.g. according to Abaye in Yevamos, who says that [Rav holds that] since she was Mafkir herself to the Arus, perhaps she was Mafkir herself to others...

Even so, she is not forbidden to him, because she is believed, like R. Gamliel. The Ri explained like this.

Objection: This cannot be. According to this, this that Abaye said "since she was Mafkir herself..." is when we did not check [the child's] mother;

This is not so! [Abaye] discusses the argument of Rav and Shmuel. We establish in Kidushin "what is Shetuki [that Shmuel said]? It is "Beduki" (we check his mother, and she is believed. I.e. Rav and Shmuel argue about after we checked!)

Answer: According to the text in Kidushin that says "an Arusah who became pregnant", this is not difficult at all! (That is a different argument of Rav and Shmuel. Perhaps the Arus never had Bi'ah with her. In Yevamos, we discuss "an Arus who had Bi'ah with his Arusah." However, according to the text in Kidushin that is like the text in Yevamos, the question remains.)

Explanation #2: Therefore, we must explain that here, we do not discuss to forbid her to him, rather, to be Machshir the child.

Now, "further" is like the simple meaning, even if he does not admit.

This does not mean that he says that it is not from him. R. Gamliel is not Machshir in such a case, since both of them are Vadai, like it says below (16a)!

Rather, the case is, he died, or he is not here to ask him.

Implied question: Below, why is this considered b'Di'eved? (The child did not marry yet!)

Answer: If we would be stringent, he would be unable to marry a Bas Yisrael, and even a Mamzeres is forbidden to him, since mid'Oraisa he is Kosher, for b'Di'eved, the Halachah follows R. Gamliel. (If mid'Oraisa he were Pasul, this would be even b'Di'eved!)

Explanations #1,2 (Rashi): Rashi gave two Perushim. (Her husband's mother was a Safek divorcee. Alternatively, his mother was Safek divorced, and her husband died and she remarried within three months, and he was born within nine months of the divorce. Perhaps he was conceived before the Safek divorce. And even if he was conceived afterwards, perhaps the divorce was invalid.) Both of these are difficult.

Objection #1: We say below "who is Almanas Isah? Any in which a Safek Chalal was assimilated.

Assimilation does not apply to one who married a Safek Chalal!

Objection #2: The word "Isah (dough)" does not apply to one person! It does apply to a family;

We say (Kidushin 69b) "all lands are dough compared to Eretz Yisrael, and Eretz Yisrael is dough compared to Bavel."

Objection #3 - Citation (Tosefta): Why do we say that an Isah is Pasul? It is due Sefekei (plural) Chalalim;

Sefekei Chalalim do not apply according to these Perushim [of Rashi]!

Explanation #3 (Ri, Riva): Isah is a family in which one Safek Chalal or many Sefekei Chalalim were assimilated;

Therefore, below it is considered Sefek-Sefeka, for each member of the family, it is a Safek if he is the Safek who became mixed with them.

Below, the text says "what is Isah? Any [family] in which [a Safek Chalal] was assimilated. The text does not say Almanas [Isah].

Support: The Yerushalmi says so. And even if the text says Almanas, "any in which was assimilated" refers to the Isah.

Question: In Kidushin (75a), it connotes that the one who is Machshir Almanas Isah agrees that the daughter [of an Isah] is Pasul;

Regarding Rav Chisda's teaching that all agree that Almanas Isah is Pasul to Kehunah... he teaches unlike the following Tana'im, i.e. the Mishnah in which R. Yehoshua [is Machshir Almanas Isah];

What is the difference between a widow and a daughter? Also a daughter is a Sefek-Sefeka, just like a widow!

Answer: The daughter of an Isah has no Chezkas Kashrus.

Implied question: Normally, we are lenient about a Sefek-Sefeka!

Answer: Chachamim made a stringency in lineage, just like below we require two majorities [to be Kosher] to be Machshir (the majority of residents, and also the majority of passersby), even though normally one majority suffices.

Explanation: Now we cannot answer that she checks [first] and [only afterwards] marries, like we answered above, for now we establish that she says "perhaps" (she herself is unsure).

Question (R. Tam): The text in Seforim says Almanas Isah. This is difficult;

If so, R. Yosi holds that Almanas Isah is Kosher, for below (Amud B) he is Machshir Shtok (one who is silent when he is called a) Mamzer, and all the more so he is Machshir Almanas Isah, like is clear from the Sugya;

In Kidushin (75a), it says explicitly that according to R. Yosi, Almanas Isah is Pasul!

Answer #1: Therefore, R. Tam erased "Almanas" from the text. Rather, it says "what is an Isah?" It discusses the daughter;

It refers to what was taught at the end of Eduyos, "an Isah is believed to be Metaher, Metamei, to distance, draw close, forbid and permit."

Explanation: It is believed to be Metaher itself through screaming [at one who asserts that it is Pasul] or silence, according to the different opinions (below, Amud B).

"Letamei and Letaher" refers to Mamzerus and Nesinus, like it says "in the future, Mamzerim and Nesinim will become Tahor."

"To distance and draw close" applies to Chalalus, like a Mishnah teaches "Kohanim will heed you to distance, but not to draw close";

Also below (27a), it says "the family distanced them."

"To forbid and permit" applies to slaves.

Implied question: Below (28b), we ask "can a family be Tahor or Tamei?!"

Answer: There, it included all Pesulim in one expression. It should have taught "this family is Kosher, and this is Pasul";

However, for Mamzerus and Nesinus alone, Tum'ah and Taharah are appropriate.

It says "believed" for Letaher, to draw close and to permit, even though Letamei, to distance and to forbid through screaming or silence, it is not appropriate to say that they are believed;

Regarding this, the Beraisa here taught "what is the Isah that is believed through screaming or silence to be Metaher the daughter? Any that has no..."

Support: The Tosefta (Eduyos 3:3) connotes like this. It teaches "an Isah is believed to be Metaher, Metamei, forbid, permit, distance and draw close; they (Chachamim) did not address [the law of] Almanas Isah."

Answer #2 (to Question (a)): Now, there is no contradiction in R. Yosi. "R. Yosi is Machshir Shtok Mamzer" refers to the Isah itself, to permit the daughter;

However, in a place where it mentions being Machshir Almanas Isah, this is Machshir only the Almanah, but not the daughter. This is clear from Kidushin (75a);

There, surely R. Yosi disqualifies even the widow. Also this is clear from Kidushin.

Support (for R. Tam - Yerushalmi - Beraisa): What is an Isah? Any that has no Mamzer, Nasin, or slaves of kings.

Citation (cont.): R. Meir says, any that has none of these, its daughter is Kosher.

Inference: It discusses Kashrus of the daughter, and not the widow.

Question (Rashba): Since this Beraisa is to explain [the Mishnah at] the end of Eduyos, if so, R. Meir, who holds that [one who is called a] Chalal is Kosher, whether he screams or is silent, how can we explain "to distance"? (This refers to Chalalus!)

Answer (Ri): R. Meir is Machshir one who is silent [when called a] Chalal, i.e. when afterwards they ask him whether he is a Chalal, and he screams;

However, if he is always silent, obviously he is Pasul!

It was taught "it is believed to distance" if he is always silent.

Implied question: Why didn't it list Amoni and Mo'avi?

Answer: This is not a uniform Pesul. The males are forbidden, but the females are permitted;

It didn't list Mitzri and Edomi, because they are forbidden only until the third generation.

The text: This is the text in all Seforim and R. Chananel's Perush.

Explanation (R. Chananel): "Any [family] in which a Safek Chalal was assimilated" implies that if a Vadai Chalal was assimilated, it is Pasul;

[The Gemara asks that] the Reisha said that [if] a Chalal [was assimilated, it] is Kosher, i.e. a Vadai Chalal!

Rejection: What is the question from the first Tana? Perhaps the first Tana argues with him!

Conclusion: Rashi's text and Perush are primary. (We ask from R. Shimon ben Elazar's final words against his initial words. He concludes that Yisrael do not recognize Chalalim among them. This implies that perhaps he was a Chalal, but people did not know. This implies that a Chalal disqualifies. His initial words say "which is Almanas Isah?..." and are Machshir if a Safek Chalal was assimilated.)

Question: He should have said that they argue about Mamzer Tzavach v'Shosek and Chalal Shosek;

They argue also about one who is silent when called a Mamzer, for R. Shimon ben Elazar is Machshir!

Question: What is the source that R. Shimon ben Elazar disqualifies Mamzer Tzavach?

Answer (Ri): In his words, he taught "what is an Isah? Any [family] in which a Safek Chalal was assimilated";

He should have taught only "Yisrael recognize Mamzerim among them, but they do not recognize Chalalim among them, for from this we learn that Tzavach Chalal is Kosher;

This is like we find, that it did not need to teach "any [family] in which a Safek Mamzer was assimilated!"

Rather, surely it comes to teach the inference, that only Chalal Tzavach is Kosher, but Mamzer Tzavach is Pasul.

Question: According to this reason, he should say that he is silent because he admits, for the first Tana disqualifies Mamzer Shosek because silence is like admission;

The same applies to Chalal Shosek according to R. Shimon, who disqualifies for this reason.

Implied question: Regarding Mamzer Shosek, he holds that silence is not like admission!

Answer: He holds that there is publicity to a Mamzer. (Therefore, he need not protest.)

Answer: The Gemara means as follows. He holds that it suffices that we do not expel him from (forbid him to) Kahal, i.e. even from Kahal Kehunah;

Even though this person insults him and calls him a Chalal, he holds that we do not remove him from Kahal Kehunah. He thinks that if he screams, they will pursue to clarify the matter and disqualify him.

This reason applies also to Mamzer Shosek, according to the first Tana. He does not hold that silence is like admission. Also Rashi explained like this.

Question: He (R. Gamliel) is Machshir when the majority are Pasul only if she claims Vadai and she has a Migo, for she could have said "I did not have Bi'ah";

Alternatively, [he is Machshir] when she has no Migo, when we can say that she checks before being Mezanah;

However, here even if she claims Vadai, she has no Migo!

We cannot say that she checks before being Mezanah, for she was raped!

Suggestion: Here, they did not see that she was raped. She said so. Therefore, she has a Migo!

Rejection: If so, there is a contradiction about the Halachah, for below, Rav rules like R. Yosi, and above, Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that the Halachah follows R. Gamliel! (If she has a Migo, this is like one who was secluded. R. Gamliel holds that she is believed in every case, but R. Yosi holds that even with a Migo, she is believed only when the majority are Kosher.)

Suggestion: These Amora'im argue about the Halachah.

Rejection #1: If so, in the case of the Arus and Arusah, how did [Rav Yosef] bring from Rav Yehudah's ruling in the name of Shmuel [to show that there is no concern? Rav requires a Kosher majority, and here everyone except for the Arus is Pasul!]

Rejection #2: Also above (13a), we ask a contradiction about the Halachah, for we hold like Rav Nachman in monetary laws...

Just the contrary! Rav rules like R. Yehoshua, and we hold like Rav regarding Isurim! (The question was asked regarding Isur, so we should follow Rav.)

Answer: The Gemara asks "like whom is this?

If it is like R. Gamliel, and she claims Vadai, and we did not see that she was raped, so she has a Migo, she is believed even when the majority are Pasul!

Also, we discuss when she was Medaberes (secluded);

If they did not see that she was Medaberes, what was the question "if it is like R. Yehoshua, even when the majority are Pasul!", and we answered that Rav taught that the episode was [at a time when] caravans were in Tzipori?